Subject:
|
Re: The Blood of Patriots & Tyrants (was Re: Sticking my gun...etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:34:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
995 times
|
| |
|
|
Asked and answered ad nauseum.
You want justification? I don’t need any more than the law of the land on my
side as far as I am concerned. You claim the law doesn’t say what I claim it
does, but my actions and those of thousands like me and unlike me, proclaim my
interpretation to be the de facto standard interpretation.
The reality is that you will accept no justification. And that’s okay with me
too.
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=17833
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=17749
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=17759 the troll
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=17776
I quote:
I am trying hard to respect your words, but I get the funny idea that this
is just one long troll for you.
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. 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.
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 am not going to waste any more time cross-referencing cites so you can
ignore their plain language. 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, 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=17788
and I quote:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
Then keep reading starting with the many links I have already provided --
convincing you isn’t my job. I keep talking about context and legislative
intent and you want to argue about words from specific quotes -- taken out
of context!
I am beginning to think that every argument about guns in the U.S. should
start with the claim of the right to keep and bear arms as based on the 2nd
Amendment AND the 9th Amendment. The right exists regardless of how one
claims it...it’s de facto.
So fine, have the 2nd Amendment argument if that’s how you get your jollies.
The right stays the same.
Now, I will have to make the mental note that we have been down this road
before. Any more from you is truly just a troll.
You have a limited understanding of the matter and that’s how you like it
because you then feel you have somehow proved your point. But the sad reality
of your rhetorical troll-game is that you have refused the de fecto standards of
interpretation and meaning that is well understood by nearly everyone in my
country. People arguing in favor of gun control generally know that are arguing
for a change in the standard understanding of things, not for some bizarre
original but subsequently misunderstood or forgotten interpretation of the words
in our liberty documents. They know those liberty documents run counter to
their aims -- they therefore tend not to use them.
Again, I obviously have the right to bear arms. How I have this right, 2nd
Amendment, 9th Amendment, understood as part of the political heritage of my
country, etc. doesn’t really trouble me. There is enough documentation there
that anyone desirous of owning a gun knows that the right of it is on their
side.
You don’t get to barge into debate with assumptions that would be de facto false
and assert them as true. I don’t have to prove anything to you. The meaning of
things is obvious on the face of more distant and even more recent history.
Frankly, how about you spend some time showing me all those gun control quotes
from the founding fathers of the U.S. O right, there probably aren’t any...
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
