Subject:
|
Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 Oct 2002 21:32:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
837 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> But if Moe the bartender said something poignant, insightful and relevant to
> the conversation, why would his opinion be more circumspect than if, say,
> the exact same point was raised by Jefferson, et al?
That's fine. I have nothing against Moe's poignancy. And while Moe may have
very valid opinions about the role of firearms in modern society, I value the
writings of the people who wrote the constitution, more than I trust Moe's
opinion -- however poignantly presented, as a source of clarification on what
words meant.
To ground this in reality, there is this one word, militia, that some people
think means an organized body of fighters somehow aligned with and governed by
the civil authority, while other people think it means all the people in the
nation who basically want to declare themselves part of it. Those of you on
the first side, have a vernacular understanding of the word, and have drawn a
very common-sense (and maybe even superior) meaning of the second amendment
based on that understanding. Those of us in the latter group, have researched
-- at least a little, what militia meant when the second amendment was written
to determine what the meaning of the law really is, and have come up with a
different conclusion (which might even creat an inferior social institution).
So how do we come to a common understanding? Do we educate ourselves as to
what the law really means and then choose to update the law when we find it
musty? Or do we just pretend that the vernacular misunderstanding is actually
correct and work our laws based on that?
There are two issues. One is whether we should have the mass of guns in
America that we do. The other is whether the government has the right to
regulate that mass of guns. In determining the second issue, the meaning of
the law needs to be known, and not just made up.
> Bring it back to the issue, not the person.
My entire point is that you can't just bring it back to the issue if you're
attempting to support one step in a chain of reason that will eventually get to
"the issue." Or am I misunderstanding?
> Critical thinking does not take a vacation just because, "Well, Jefferson
> said it so it must be right--no need to interpret it any differently."
But no one is living the characature you describe.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) And, again I agree that appealling to those more intelligent and well versed than ourselves to aid in our defense of a particular point can be a good thing. But if Moe the bartender said something poignant, insightful and relevant to the (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
