Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:19:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
892 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > > I obey the law *because* it's the law...
> >
> > That attitude makes you sound like a goon.
>
> My attitude makes me sound like a goon? What kind of goon?
The kind who is an authority apologist. The same kind as Scott Arthur when he
says the very same thing. I don't care how much you want to dress it up; what
you are implying is that you would follow laws that demand unjust or immoral
action from you...simply because you believe in the notion of democracy. Fine.
If that's what you think, then that's what you think. But to me that sounds
evil. I'll continue to do what's right instead of what's legal except when the
inconvenience outweighs my sense of moral backbone (as with paying taxes to
support an unjust and corrupt system of governance).
> 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 I'm wondering if you've ever read the NRA literature. I was an NRA member
for seven years. I recently let my membership lapse because they seemed like
the lap-dogs of congretional wives to me. I'm looking for a lobby group that
really supports the right of the people to overthrow the government...not just
hunt.
> > 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.
I'm not misinterpreting anything. If you don't mean what you wrote, you should
have written something else.
> '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.
If something is obviously dumb, why should I do it just because "some people
somewhere thought it'd be a good idea?" Some people think that injecting
heroine into their veins is a good idea, I'll pass, thanks. In fact some large
groups of people have thought that suicide was a good idea...what about you?
And I personally live with a group of people who think that rejecting religious
notions and dogma is a good idea, but I'm not sure you're signing on. So
what's so darned magical about thes particular "some people somewhere" that
makes you want to follow them?
> > I feel free to disregard the laws if I doubt that it will inconvenience me.
> So it comes down to a matter of conveinience?
Yes, precicely. There are a host of laws telling me to do dumb (or
immoral) stuff. The ones that I can easily get away with ignoring, I do. The
ones that I really have to follow to avoid undue hassle, I do. I don't feel
good about doing bad stuff, but I choose to because the cost of not doing so is
too great.
> 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.
Yes, but it was morally intollerable. We've been over this already.
> Yes we have the power to
> overturn the laws if said laws are found to be unjust.
Maybe where you live. I don't have that power. In fact, I have always lived
with taxation but no representation. There has never, during my life, been a
person in congress who represented my views.
> > > 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.
I never claimed that.
> > > So you are part of a well regulated militia are you?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> A police officer? In the army? Good for you.
A citizen.
> > > 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.'"
No. Read what I wrote. I am following exactly what was written verbatim.
There is no interpretation needed. What they really meant to say is what was
written.
> 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.
It was, as I wrote above, an explanation. Have you read it? What's so
unclear. It's written in plain English.
> 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."
What's your problem? I favor following all of the constitution exactly. And
when something needs to be changed, we change it instead of just ignoring it.
Your mischaracterization of me is tiresome.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) Nowhere in my postings did I *ever* imply that. I will reiterate--it is *not* because of the guns the police officers have, but because it's the law, that I obey the law. You are putting the emphasis on the wrong part of the equation. I don't (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) I fear you are misrepresenting my views. I can't think of any law that I view as "immoral", but I can list a few that I view as being "unjust" to me. However, I share this island with a lot of other people, and I am polite enough to respect (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
