Subject:
|
Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 19:17:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1694 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> David:
>
> I am trying hard to respect your words, but I get the funny idea that this
> is just one long troll for you.
Well, you could choose to call my opinion 'trolling', however, I know I'm not.
> Either that or you have some kind of blinders on over this particular
> subject. Those quotes were just the tip of the iceberg -- there are dozens
> of such statements, Federalist and Anti-Federalist, the explain precisely
> what rights were assumed to exist and which were worthy of being protected
> in the Bill of Rights.
And in each and every instance you quoted, I looked at the entire quote, and
found that I read it differntly than you. I pointed out it should be
interpreted, using common, everyday english, and yet, no refutation--just
"You're not intelligent enuf to get it..."
Yes I could go into every law ever made in the United States. However, I
was discussing the 2nd, as it reads. If I wanted to discuss other things,
I'd look 'em up. I know that, in the past I had opinions about evolution
and such, but after doing some reading here, and elsewhere, I changed my POV
somewhat--it's called learning.
But I say to you right here and right now, that it is not me with the
blinders on this time, it is those that desperately want to hold onto their
gun, as if it's a security blanket, and are willing to twist words, phrases,
sentences and meanings to support said want. As it stands, the 2nd, and
every instance that you quoted, does not support *all* citizens, even with
the additional clarification of *freemen* attached to it, the right to bear
arms. And still, you insist that I am wrong, and you quote. I take those
quotes--not deleting one jot and tittle, and I showed you how you were wrong
in your interpretation. And yet, somehow, I don't know what those quotes mean.
K, I accept that.
> You want to argue against them -- fine, you go look
> them up. I am very satisfied that I know what you will find and what those
> quotes mean. I know exactly what the framers of the U.S. Constitution meant
> about a good many things because I have made a point of reading their words
> for myself -- and this at a time before the advent of the internet made such
> research SO much easier.
Read, and interpreted differently than you. Where does that leave us?
>
> I was reading "Am Jur" and "Words and Phrases" in the Los Angeles law
> library paying for Saturday parking on the streets while I read. I own
> personal reading copies of the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist
> papers. I have read extensively the texts of Locke, Rousseau, Bastiat (a
> bit later), Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and many others -- I think I have
> read far more than I even recall easily. I read a lot! And I did this kind
> of thing for many years. To understand the reasons for things you have to
> read why the political theoreticians and the framers believed a thing to be
> important -- you have to get at their rationales for things.
I have 450 Star Trek books (geek that I am), I have the complete "Gor"
series taking up the bottom of my bookshelf, I read thru Azimov, Adams,
Clark, Chalker, Eddings, and probably JRR a few times since I was in my
early teens--does that make me an "expert" on SF/Fantasy? Prob'ly not--it
just means that I read these things and that I prob'ly appreciate the genre.
And we're back to 'what they *really* meant to say was this...
Of course these ammendments are important--that's why they're there--the
framers are not going to put "XXVII Ammendment--make sure your salad fork is
on the outside..." Never said they were not important.
>
> I am not going to waste any more time cross-referencing cites so you can
> ignore their plain language.
Again with the ignore--I didn't ignore one dotted "i" or crossed "t". I
answered every single instance put before me and nothing, not one portion of
said post, not one refutation appears here.
With my interpretation of what words mean, I set out to show how
*everything* you quoted, fits into the logical based framework as to what
the 2nd really and truly does mean.
> I am not going to do your homework for you. I
> think it's pretty clear that you are arguing about what you don't know --
> and you don't know because you haven't read it. Nothing forbids you from
> reading it, so do so if you like. When you argue from ignorance, and
> everyone else can see that,
I don't see that. See, it doesn't matter if you're convinced, that Larry
and Chris are on-side--that's preaching to the choir. And it's a choir that
is seated in, imho, that zealotous church of the almighty gun. You have to
convince me. I'm here, more than willing to learn, but thus far, it is
misread interpretations and rhetoric--I'm not buying.
I'm not arguing from ignorance--I may not be as well read as you in the
matters of the political field, but I have a post-secondary education. But
even if I had little or no academic education, it would not mean I'm
ignorant--my uncle who has no scholastic education at all, has the most
common sense I have seen in any person. Education does not equal lack of
ignorance. Lack of an informed opinion (and informed here means not
entrenched in dogma) is ignorant--the KKK is ignorant--they think that there
are 'lesser' people in the world than them, the KKK is stuck in their own
dogmatic ideals, incapable of seeing a 'bigger picture'.
> it weakens your argument and makes it tedious
> for everyone else because you arguing from a subset of knowledge and not the
> whole picture. You need more than a dictionary here, although that is a
> good start. I tried to provide a starter's set of quotes, ones that would
> lead you on your merry way -- if you choose not to make the journey, then
> fine. But don't then come back at me and argue things as if you had made
> the journey.
And don't come at me, claiming ignorance of your opponent because you don't
like his answers--it smacks of elitism. I answered--I didn't have to live
in the US for numerous years, confining myself to the library of congress,
and research and cross reference the points I want to make. I made logical,
thought out points in everyday parlance, and every point that I made fits
into the logical framework that I believe in. And yet, imho, your framework
does not hold these laws very well. *If* it says that people can own guns,
then people can and we ignore the well regulated militia. If the well
regulated militia is a defining feature as to who can own a gun, then it's a
defining feature, and we have to take those words "Well Regulated" as well
as "Militia".
Show me how that's wrong.
There's a common ground--we should be able to achieve it--and yet, there you
are, ensconced in your trenches with the safeties off.
> That's like having an opinion of a movie you haven't seen and insisting that
> you something of depth to contribute to a discussion of the film. It
> doesn't really work that way.
What doesn't work here is vilifying someone elses opinion, even if he has
seen the film, because you don't like his opinion.
> The point is: I don't question the nature of my assumed rights. If you do
> question the kinds of rights that U.S. freemen enjoy, then the burden is on
> you to establish why these rights are somehow misguided or wrong. And I am
> not seeing that -- I am not even sure you have the requisite knowledge to
> form a meaningful opinion on the subject.
I don't question the nature of my assumed rights either--I can swing my arm,
however foolishly that may look, as much as I want, until it comes in
contact with your nose.
Where does the 2nd play in assumed rights? Nowhere.
I have pointed out, in all my previous posts, how your right to bear arms is
misguided and/or wrong--that guns cannot be given, ad hoc, to people. I
have shown concretely why this is so, using the framework and the context of
the 2nd, and every additional piece of legislation or foundational quote
that you found fits into my interpretation of the framework. Not so for
you. It is my belief that you cannot form a meaningful opinion because you
cannot see outside your self-built worldview, you cannot see a bigger
picture, and that everything you read, or have ever read, will be
interpreted thru 'rose coloured glasses' in order to facilitate you owining
your gun.
> I do not take likely the ideas upon which my life may depend. This isn't
> some amusing argument in the boy's locker-room where seriousness may be
> disregarded in favor of playing the devil's advocate for no reason. I can't
> disregard the right and duty to bear arms just because some people are
> getting uncomfortable with the idea of how the world really is.
I don't even know how to respond here--who went on the tirade about
defending your armed services against cute little quips? Amusing
arguement?? 30000+ people died because of a gun last year--you think this
amuses me?? I can't believe you even said that after reading my posts.
People are dieing! Get a clue!! The only thing that makes me
uncomofortable is that you're so blinded by your faulty rationale, you can't
see that your fellow citizen is dieing! I don't know everything there is to
know about this life and how to live well, but I do know that I don't need a
gun in order to live it. Read the words--they're there to be read--read
them without your gun-loving blinders on and make a proper decision. "The
right and the duty to bear arms..." Gun toting yahoo is what that sounds like.
> Just as an aside: My SO and I were eating some beef and I began to talk
> about good parts of the animal to eat and how it is butchered for the best
> culinary benefit (actually, to be even more specific we were discussing the
> particulars of an Argentine-style "parrillada"). Well, she began to get a
> little green and asked me to stop talking about where the food we were
> eating comes from because it was making her ill. Okay, fine. But what
> insane hypocrisy, right? She'll eat the thing, but let's not talk about
> what it is? I mean, the meat doesn't leap into styrofoam plates of its own
> -- someone has to kill and butcher it first! To kill a thing, a plant or an
> animal, for one's consumption and survival is an ethical act. To waste or
> be ungrateful would be unethical, or at least bad manners. But what's my point?
>
> Well, it's fine to talk about the expendability of rights in the abstract
> once you have them secured. But someone has to have an eye to making sure
> they stay secured by recalling how those rights were secured in the first
> place. Yeah, some people go a little green about guns. It IS distasteful --
> guns are nonetheless necessary because of that fact.
Not even close. You know my point about the police and armed services--I
shan't delve into them, again, to refute this faulty notion of yours.
>
> -- Hop-Frog
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 3 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
|
|
|
|
