Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Sep 2002 02:34:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1047 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > 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.
>
> What exactly does this mean?
Quoteth Dave K (quoting dictionary):
goon: a thug hired to commit acts of violence or intimidation (usually with
a gun)
The last time the NRA won some sort of whatever, there was numerous
newsclips of Heston holding up a gun, saying 'outta my cold dead hands...'.
If we take this for the entire quote that it is suppose to represent, it is
much as folks here have been saying--'you will have to take away my gun out
of my cold dead hands' Pretty much an explicit threat and/or intimidation,
just like the threat 'We can shoot the politicians if they don't do what we
want them to.'
Fighting whomever to hold on to a gun to the death and shooting politicians.
Well, there's the pinnacle of civilization.
So my little retort to that is that if you want a def'n of a 'goon', as in
someone who wants to intimidate, who wants to get his way against the good
of others (as goons do), then taking the explicit threat ,'outta my cold
dead hands' and the worship of the little hunk of metal in his hands--my
pointing to a good representation of a goon holds up.
> I happen to think that owning, knowing how to operate, and keeping weapons
> in good functioning order is a predicate to a free society -- yes, including
> and particularly, guns. It may be trite but: freemen bear arms. [N.B.
> freemen is not a typo.]
And I happen to think that having guns in circulation of anybody not in the
military or the police forces is *limiting* freedom--living in fear of
getting shot is *not* living in freedom, thank you very much. Furthermore,
there are a whole stack of countries in the world who have laws against
owning guns, and they are pretty much higher than the 'free' USofA on the
list of best places to live in the world. And isn't it something that the
'most free nation on the planet' the United States has more people
incarcerated per capita than Russia under communism and Africa under aparthied.
Dictionary def'n--Freeman: a person who is not a slave, a person who enjoys
political and social liberties, a person who enjoys a privilege, such as a
freedom of a city.
Do you read 'gun' anywhere? Try to equate being free to owning guns,
especially in todays age when your wittle gun is going to do oh so much
against a tank and/or ICBM. So what's next--we should all have the freedom
to own tanks and nukes? Stand up, dust the sand off your knees, step out of
the sandbox and grow up. Put away the gun for the good of society. Put
away the gun so we can actually live free, instead of living in fear.
30,000 ish gun deaths in the US last year. I would hazard a guess that, per
capita, Canada had a few fewer than that.
>
> Baldly stated, I believe that when you lose your guns you will also lose
> your liberty. I can think of no history that would contradict that view.
How about something right from folks who studied Baldy himself...
"
In these collected writings of F. A. Harper, concerned with liberty in the
broadest sense, are to be found some of his conclusions. But the reader will
also find throughout his works a series of carefully directed questions. For
as Judge Learned Hand observed, "The spirit of liberty is the spirit which
is not too sure that it is right." I believe that is the spirit in which
Baldy would have us pursue his search-a never-ending search for the truth
about liberty.
"
Well look at that--"The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too
sure that it is right." ... I believe that is the spirit in which Baldy
would have us pursue his search-a never-ending search for the truth about
liberty.
Perhaps times change. Perhaps people change. Perhaps the truths that were
'self evident' when the DOI and the constitution were written are not
perhaps the same truths today--just for starters, we have the Police *and*
we have streetlights. Well looky that--perhaps we can grow up and find
*better* ways of doing things instead of everybody walking around with guns,
waiting for someone else to step on their foot. Moreover, perhaps we can
look at things again and see how we may have been misguided (as in 'under
God' in the DOI), and perhaps we may have misinterpreted some things that
were written, not only 200+ years ago, but also 2000ish years ago. Perhaps
being beholden to a piece of paper is not such a good idea.
This is what I do know--social justice is a better reason for doing what's
right than carrying guns around, it's alot safer, and it's a heck of alot
'freeer' for each and every one of us can actually partake in social
justice--guns just cause fear.
>
> > 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.
>
> And which democracy would this be? In the states we have a republic --
> which I think is much better.
K, are you deliberately being obtuse? The United States of America is a
democratic nation in which people vote. It's not the 'precise' definition
but for the love of all things, what do all the politians say? 'Look at our
democratic process! Look how well it works as opposed to communism (or
whatever else)'. No one says, 'look at the republic...' they say 'the
democratic process...'
If I can be any clearer, just let me know and I'll try to clear it up for you.
The bottom line (once again) is that you are *allowed* to own your gun (as
you keep on trying to point out), but don't think that it's that little
piece of metal that's keeping your freedom in check. I state again that
it's the military out there in the world that is protecting your freedom,
and it's the police and law enforcement that's protecting your freedom at
home--it has absolutely nothing to do with that gun in your house. How do I
know this? Because not everyone owns a gun and they are just as free as
you. No you're not keeping their freedom in check for them with your
gun--don't be delusional--you're limiting the freedom of life for 30,000
people per year with your gun in your house, not to mention the numerous
assaults taking place at the threat of a gun.
>
> -- Hop-Frog
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) Yup. A very valuable one. (...) I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, but if not, then we agree. The pinnacle of civilization _is_ the understanding the the power (all of it...the ultimate power of military projection as well as the power of (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
