Subject:
|
Re: The Blood of Patriots & Tyrants (was Re: Sticking my gun...etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:23:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
915 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > You lambaste the Christians for appealing to their higher authority, an
> > authority which you yourself don't recognize, why should anyone recognize
> > your appeal to your personal higher authority?
>
> Apples and oranges, Kooties. Xtian authorities have nothing to do with civil
> laws. My higher authority was variously a founder of my country, one of its
> primary legal authors, and an incredibly politically influential person besides.
Not according to your current president, or some ex-judge stating that your
judicial system is based on the 10 commandments--these political people are
appealing to God and the Bible. I'd say it's a difference b/w Macintosh and
Golden Delicious apples. You may not like one, but it's still an apple. But I
concede that before we even start--extreme examples that even I, as a Christian,
don't appreciate.
I could talk about the pacifism of Carter, a former president. I could metion
Martin Luther King, jr as an incredibly influential person. These people didn't
believe in arms solving problems, and they lived a little closer to our time
than did Jefferson. As such, they probably had a better understanding of what
todays society is like.
>
> > When you give a cite, I'd like it to be a legitimate bona-fide law,
> > please--one that we all may recognize as an authority.
>
> Well, the 2nd Amendment then.
2nd, even in what I consider to be your flawed interpretation thereof, cannot
possibly be interpreted as saying that the 'arms' you 'legitimately' bear are
there to preserve democracy. You read too much into it in the first place, now
you want it to also say that the reason you can bear arms is in case of revolt?
I'll concede that we could go 'round and 'round about the 2nd and what it really
says, so we wont--for the purposes of this, and only this discussion, it says
exactly what you think it says, but you can't go adding that 'preserving
democracy' part to it *at all*. Those words aren't even there.
>
> But I suppose you will now go on ad nauseum to claim that the language is
> ambiguous. I will then claim that it is not ambiguous unless you want to ignore
> what it plainly states as understood from the perspective of well-documented
> authorial intent and from an historical perspective. You will then claim that
> the ambiguity leaves it open to modern interpretation. Blah Blah Blah yadda
> yadda yadda...
>
> The proof of what things mean is the fact that I own a gun. Legally.
> Constitutionally. As a matter of right. As a freeman. It's a political fact
> -- de facto. Today. Right now.
I believe I said before that legally you *can* own a gun. My whole issue, for
those too obtuse to understand, is *should* you own a gun?--Justify it. And you
haven't. You haven't justified the needless deaths of thousands of your fellow
citizens. Mike brought up the evil card, but I reiterate--evil is allowing
countless deaths to occur because you stand by and let them.
> Your argument is getting childish again. This bit: "TJ was a thoughtful and
> thorougly well versed man. For 1786." is just stupid beyond all reason...
What applied to civilization in '76 may not necessarily apply today. What is so
childish about that? I don't need to keep a constant supply of hay for my mode
of transportation in my barn--society has changed, whether you admit it or not.
What is childish and immature is ardently ignoring yor surroundings today in
favour of what you wish it to be. That is what children do. Adults look around
them and see what's truly going on, and they try to fix it, instead of hiding
behind personal desires or wishes. When thousands of your fellow citizens die
every year, don't you think that you should endeavour to prevent that? What
will it take for you to wake up to the plight of thousands around you?
>
> Again, I ask: are we not using guns in Iraq? Are the Iraqis not using guns on
> us?
Is a war zone. Is what's happening in Iraq also happeining in douwntown USA?
You imply by this very analogy that Iraq is the USA--that what happens in Iraq
must be the case in the USA. It's again a childish notion of appealing to other
situations that are not the case for your current scenario. "Timmy gets to have
guns, so why can't I?" Little Timmy has to fight to stay alive thru the day in
Iraq. Not so much if Timmy was living in America.
>
> How is it that guns are irrelevant? And if they are not irrelevant then there
> goes your silly "For 1786" argument...
We've had over 100 posts on this, and you keep coming back with the same
irrelevant points and appeals to scenarios which aren't America today. Your
debating technique, in this instance, is just, as you say, 'silly'. I may have
been shrill, and for that, I apologize. However, you, and others, have said
nothing remotely close to changing my mind on this topic. You've just
reinforced the stereotype of 'gun toting yahoo'--wanting yout gun at the
exclusion of any rational thought or good for society.
I'm tired--let's talk about traffic. Then you and I can at least agree that
something needs to be done and we can talk to our hearts content about what that
'something' is.
>
> -- Hop-Frog
As an aside to this whole conversation, it is interesting to note that whilst
searching thru Jefferson writings:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/texts/
That when you search for 'arms', you get 80-90ish results, and some of those
results include the portion of the anatomy between the hands and the shoulders,
thus reducing the number of references to 'arms', as in guns, as written by
Jefferson, to a number considerably less than 80-90.
However, when you type in 'law' for search related purposes, there's over 1000
hits.
I wonder what Jefferson was more focused on--laws or arms I wonder what
Jefferson would have wanted the population to put their efforts--working with
laws or working with arms?
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
111 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
|
|
|
|
