Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:17:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
954 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
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 believe the law is sacred and must be upheld at all
times, for, again, there may be unjust laws and we should work at changing
them--where haven't I said that?
Furthermore, I was just showing that I'm not even close to the def'n of a
goon, nor am I now an authority apologist. I may make a few blanket
statements for 'them there gun toting yahoos' but not specifics (besides the
occasional 'stop being obtuse' when my 'plain english' is being misread,
either deliberately or unintentionally.
> 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).
If you want to misinterpret (again)
>>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.
Then all the power to you
> > 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 say exactly what I mean. I cannot help if you misinterpret it.
>
> > '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?
Nowhere in my little posting did I ever mention that 'because joe schmoo
jumped off a bridge that you should as well.'
I'll state explicitly, since you're not getting what I'm saying, is that
people got together to make laws that would govern a society. They thought
that these laws would be a good thing and they tried to make these laws as
best as possible. I applaud them for the effort. I obey the laws because
they are the law and *not* because the cops have guns. Nowhere in that
little idea does it say that I believe *in* the laws, it says I obey the
laws because it's the right thing to do and *not* because the cops have
guns--the important part is why I do it, not that I do it.
Now if a law is unjust, then we should work at getting it out of the books.
> > > 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.
Freedom isn't a matter of convenience--I can only enjoy my freedom while the
sky is blue the sun is shining. That doesn't work. If we believe that
'these truths are self evident' then it is true *all the time*, not just
when it's convenient.
Show me a *law* that tells you to do dumb and/or immoral stuff. One law
that tells you that you *must* do something stupid. If such a law exists,
we should work on getting it eliminated from the books.
> > 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 it was morally intolerable and there was a wee bit of a war to drill it
into the heads of the people who just didn't get the immorality of it
all--All I can say is, 'Thank God the north won'. Moral superiority
plug--the Canadian underground railroad--TGIC! :)
The bottom line is Lincoln did the right thing, even if it meant that he
might lose half the country in the process.
>
> > 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 everybody was in congress, you would have one person who represented your
views, for you would be there. If 100 people voted, and 99 people voted for
Joe Smith and you voted for John Doe--guess what--Joe Smith is going to
congress and your views would not be represented--it's the nature of
democracy. If you believe in John Doe so much, then you're going to have to
sell his ideas to the people. In the end, it's the people who make the call
with their votes. Democracy 101. If you don't like it, move to a country
that doesn't have democratically elected representation.
>
> > > > 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.
I didn't say *you* claimed that--I said 'A *Nation*'--Your politicians claim
it thu the US history. I mean lately it's 'the reason why people hate us so
much is because we are the shining example of what mankind can achieve' I
read it, I see it on the news. I'm not saying *you*, Chris, believe
this--I'm saying your country does.
And even though I stated the negative 'purports to be...', I still believe
that the democratic process *works* inasfar as *if* there's something
unjust, *the people* have a voice to change it. That's how democracy works.
>
> > > > So you are part of a well regulated militia are you?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > A police officer? In the army? Good for you.
>
> A citizen.
I'm a citizen. My rights are just as important as yours. And *I* interpret
the 2nd differntly than you do. Where does that leave us?
>
> > > > 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.
And so it says 'verbatim' the separation of *church* and *state*, so I can
get funding for my daughters 'we love Jesus' club in the school 'cause she
certainly isn't a preacher, nor is her group of 10 year old friends a church.
Well regulated militia does not constitute Little Timmy in grade one, who
lives down the street.
> > 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.
Yeah, the first part is there so you don't look like a bunch of gun toting
yahoos--also posted by someone in this very thread. Guess what? The
tenaciousness to which folks hold onto their guns is akin to a pit bull,
clamped onto a childs leg and just won't let go. Too late, the gun people
already look like a bunch of gun toting yahoos.
Of corse I have read it--it's even posted in this very thread somewhere.
Yes it is written in plain english--show me how a 6 year old boy in Vermont
constitutes part of the make up of a 'well regulated militia'. He's
definitly 'people'--'plain' english, he's entitled to own a gun.
Furthermore, as sometimes I am prone to doing, *if* I concede your full
understanding of the 2nd, can't we all just say it was a dumb-ass ammendment
written in a time before street lights and police, and it should be stricken
from the books? The frontier *has* been tamed (yes is quoted from WW--get
over it ;) )
>
> > 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 that's your perrogative. I favour using things such as the constitution
and other finely written documents to *base* a society on, not hold the
society hostage to these documents, for documents are static pieces of paper
written in a specific time, and people, society, and civilization changes
over time.
> And
> when something needs to be changed, we change it instead of just ignoring it.
You just said *exactly* what I have been saying. I point out to you, sir,
that it is not me who is mischaracterizing anything here, but you. Not once
have I ever stated that we should *ignore* an issue.
Quoteth me:
> > 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.
> Your mischaracterization of me is tiresome.
Where have I mischaracterized *you*. I may have issues with your beliefs
and I may try to convince you that your view is wrong, but that's all that
I'm doing--looking at ideas and issues and making my own logical
conclusions. The only person I have 'insulted' in my postings was Mr.
Heston, and that was just to point out, IMHO, what a goon could be
interpreted as, for I was the one who was called a 'goon' first, and in this
very post I was called a, what was it?--authority apologist, which my
postings have shown that I'm not.
Attack the issues and ideas Chris, not the person.
>
> Chris
You have the freedom to own a gun, just as you should have the freedom to
smoke pot, and inject your arm with whatever. Is it good for you and/or the
betterment of society? IMHO not even close.
Guns=drugs=crime=non-freedom.
Dave K
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
