Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:07:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
880 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
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 dead hands'... You want a goon?--there's a pretty
good def'n right there.
> So things are made right merely by being law? Like when it was
> legal to own people of recent African decent?
K, if you wish to misinterpret the 'if a law is unjust there are ways to
work within the system to get rid of said law' go ahead. It comes with the
territory of... anyone... anyone--right--a Democracy.
>
> 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's a start--it makes us 'higher evolved' than the lower animals where
strength and power rule, and forget about the weak. It says, 'I obey the
law *not* because I may get shot if I don't, but because some people
somewhere thought it'd be a good idea if we all tried it this way. If we
try it and it doesn't work, let's change the law' It's called the evolution
of society and civilization. Sticking with 'Obey me 'cause I have a gun' is
'he who has the biggest stick rules' mentality--it's bullying, it's
kindergarden sandbox, and I like to think that humanity is better than that.
There may come a time when laws are redundant and, as my girlfriend hopes,
social justice is the norm. Until that time, and in todays day and age,
prove you're mature to handle the concept of doing the right thing, not
because of punishment if you don't, but because doing the right thing is
inherently the right thing to do.
> 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.
So it comes down to a matter of conveinience? It is convenient for 'those
whiteys' to have slaves. I'd have to say it was *very* convenient when
slaves are doing all the labour. It's convenient to throw your trash out
the window. It's convenient to do oh so many things.
Yes we can feel free to disagree with laws. Yes we have the power to
overturn the laws if said laws are found to be unjust. There is a system we
have in place *now* that is relatively new but has been in a trial basis for
a few hundered years--it's called democracy and it seems, at least for this
day and age, to work. It tells us that the people have the power and guess
what? the people don't need the guns to enforce their power. Well how
about that?
There was a story told by a real person involved in the White House, that
when Nixon had to resign, the guy took his kids in the family car and drove
to the white house and said something like, 'See this? the most powerful
man in the world has to leave this house, because the people made it so.
And there are no soldiers, no guns, nothing that was forcing Nixon out of
power but for the power of the people.
> > It's the mature, 'evolved', inherently *right* way of doing things,
>
> :-)
>
> Uh hunh.
Yes, it is.
>
> > If a law is unjust, then there are ways and means *within* the law to deal
>
> Inadequate and largely inaccessible "ways."
No, very accessible ways for a nation that purports to be the shining light
of democracy to the entire world.
>
> > So you are part of a well regulated militia are you?
>
> Yes.
A police officer? In the army? Good for you.
>
> > 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."
So we're back to, "what they really meant to say was 'everybody who can
carry a gun can carry a gun.'" Well, then why have the first part in there?
It makes absolutely no sense to have that part there *if* the second part
was all that mattered. All other ammendments "have to be taken at face
value, especially that 'separation of church and state' one, but we hafta
*interpret* this one ammendment our way so we can have our guns."
goon: a thug hired to commit acts of violence or intimidation (usually with
a gun *1) Me, a goon? I don't think so.
>
> > 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)
Better late than never. Glad you're here, part of the discussion.
Dave K
*1 Goon def'n from dictionary--addendum in brackets from me.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
