Subject:
|
Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:14:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1290 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
Did you also stop to consider that, in context of the day and age,
that “whole people” didn’t include black people? See, isn’t it fun when
dealing with context as written for the audience of the time. Selective
understanding is what I’d call it.
|
Not at all. You would be 100% correct as to the meaning at the time of
ratification. But collectively, the 13th and 14th Amendment gave freed slaves
the status of Freemen. Knowing precisely what that meant, many freed slaves
had to obtain guns almost immediately to protect themselves from the kinds of
personal physical attacks to which former slaves might fall victim. Indeed,
to protect themselves against the kinds of crimes to which persons of color
still fall victim even today, all these years later.
You can’t win this argument because the social set-up wasn’t 100% perfect
from the outset -- everyone knows that fact. Women did not also have the
vote at that time either. So what? Shame has no place in this argument, and
you are not standing on a moral high ground despite what you may think.
|
This has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with your
selective interpretation. Either the 2nd is archaic, for you do not supply
militia members as needed from ‘the people’ anymore, the people who join the
militia today are supplied with training and arms as needed from the resources
of the militia (you don’t bring your gun to basic)--which was the original
intent of the 2nd, or you dismantle the standing armed forces you have now for
they are ‘unconstitutional’. Stop with the wiggling.
| |
Would you take a gun from a person whose front lawn is lit up by a burning
cross? You act like it was so long ago. Sometimes rough justice is All
that is left to an otherwise completely non-violent person. You wait for the
police to come around to protect you and all you shall have left is corpses
hanging from a tree.
|
We’re back to the justice of the gun. “Oh my savior--the Smith and Wesson!”
Isn’t cross burning a symptom of a larger issue--did a gun in the guys house
prevent the problem in the first place? Or did the gun lead to an eventual
resolution? And would you explain that to the parents of the family who just
lost their 5 year old daughter due to a gun related homicide? I have a feeling
that more people die due to wrongdoings committed with privately owned guns than
people saved by private gun ownership.
| |
I have pointed out before that the only time the police are responsible for
any person in society is when that person is specifically in custody. If it
were otherwise, police departments thoughtout the States would be sued for
negligence. Of course they are not sued for negligence, although it has been
tried.
|
And we’re back to this, which doesn’t have anything to do with the 2nd, but
let’s dwell here for a moment. This is your arguement now? Because the police
are made up of fallible people and can’t be sued? So if you had the ability to
hold the police forces accountable for every misstep, would you then give up
your gun? Of course not--this is a staw man--you’d come up with another thinly
veiled excuse.
Hey, I have an idea--how about we give the cops the resources they need to do
their jobs properly for a start. This contempt you have for the men in
blue--from where does it arise? “Oh the corruption in the forces!” Well, the
last time I checked, this is where the “well regulated” bit is suppose to play a
factor, as stated right in your very own 2nd, and if they’re not ‘well
regulated’ then I suggest you do something about it. And let me give you a
clue--your gun in your house isn’t helping fix the forces--they have to respond
to some gun related homicides to the tune of 30 a day, added to that is the
hundreds of gun related crimes that didn’t end in a death. But you know, that’s
what we pay them for.
| |
Bottom line: you are responsible for your own protection. When shove comes
to hit, when hit comes to stab, a gun might serve you well.
|
Nice. And the stats of guns stolen from homes, or guns used in domestic
disputes... I’d say that guns are used more in acts of violence than acts of
protection. When was the last time I saw on the news or read in the paper that
a private citizen thwarted a robbery or dispute while brandishing a gun? Oh
wait, the last one I heard of was when the crook was shot in the back whilst
trying to flee the scene.
| |
I say let all Freepersons protect themselves as is fitting under the civil
rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.
|
And I say that you just showed your selective interpretation.
| |
| |
Why was slavery outlawed. Why did your country go to war over it? There
were laws on the books concerning slavery--it was all lawful and such, and
the freedoms of the owners was pretty good? Why go to war? Why fight for
it at all? Well, because there were people who weren’t enjoying the very
freedoms and liberties that your country cherishes.
|
Um, freed slaves desperately wanted and needed the right to bear arms. Such
status: armed, was proof of having been made free. I suspect that you read
other meanings into it, but...
|
No, I concur. Guns, in their day, show proof of freedom to the person. It is,
a you just pointed out, historically accurate and I wouldn’t dream of
interpreting it differently.
| |
Freemen bear arms.
| |
During the day when this was written, permanent armies were a no-no. Love
putting things in the context for which they were written. No permanent
armies so if, say, for example, off the top of my head, your president wants
to go to war with someone, he’d have to call up the militia...
|
“Art. I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power...To declare war, grant
letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land
and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that
use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a
navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval
forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the
union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing,
arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as
may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states
respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training
the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...”
So he could form an army under the 2 year provision in the Constitution and
with the support of congress. It is likely any such army would largely be
comprised of the many state militia -- which is the whole of the armed
citizenry. It’s a somewhat complicated process and you would be right in
surmising that said provisions have largely been side-stepped more recently.
(A good a reason as any to note that provisions of the U.S. Constitution are
only as certain as the people’s will and ability to enforce them. Ahem, and
what form would you imagine that enforcement would take? Strong words?
Pleadings before elected officials? Yeah, think again...)
|
And as you just pointed out that “The Congress shall have power... To raise and
support armies.... authority of training the militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress” I see no incongruitiy with my point. What’s yours?
The reason that people had guns was that they may be called up to form the “well
regulated” militia--the people would, of course, have to bring their own guns
for there were no permanent armies to supply the armaments. Unlike today, where
the armed services gives you the tools and training you need.
| |
To my knowledge the two year provision still stands. It has probably been
reduced to the mere manner in which the monies are obtained for the armed
forces even though I suspect it was intended to cover far more. In fact, I am
almost positive of that fact, but I would need to reread portions of the
Federalist or Madison’s Notes on the Convention. Again, another example of
where plain and original meaning gets muddied by the erosion of time and
failure to stipulate with greater specificity what is meant. That’s why we
have to resort to legislative intent -- not because it’s fun, but because
language is often hugely imprecise.
|
Language is imprecise? No, really? And yet you stand ever so firm on your
interpretation thereof.
| |
That would be the crux of most of your arguments, what I am going to call the
“picky-picky” word game. All language falls apart eventually -- it is
precisely that fallibility upon which the critical theory of Deconstruction
is based. For guys like Dave! and I, this was the bread and butter of our
former school days...
|
I refute every point and you call it picky-picky. Hamilton stated it--the
people who want guns should be as disciplined as the militia. I’d say that it’s
almost inherent in the very wording of the 2nd--for if you want a well regulated
militia, the people you call on should, in turn, be well regulated.
The language is ‘good enough’ for you to make irrefutable claims, but is
imprecise enough for someone to disagree. I’d call that selective
understanding.
You fault John Neal for his selective interpretations of the
Bible--interpretations that he was probably raised with--his ‘bread and butter’
as you say. And you ask him to have some sense of discernment where his ‘value
system’ is concerned. Yet as noted, you don’t afford the same level of
discernment for yourself.
You don’t want a well regulated militia, you don’t want any type of regulation
or ideas of “discipline and the use” of guns. You just want the guns and heaven
forbid if any legislation even bears a whiff of regulation.
| |
de·con·struc·tion, noun
A philosophical movement and theory of literary criticism that questions
traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth, asserts that
words can only refer to other words, and attempts to demonstrate how
statements about any text subvert their own meanings: “In deconstruction, the
critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text, but only in
the various, often mutually irreconcilable, ‘virtual texts’ constructed by
readers in their search for meaning” (Rebecca Goldstein).
-- Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Etc, Etc, Etc.
That said, we go on...
Note the fact that a distinction is made between the use of the words
“armies,” “navy,” and “militia.” Note the hierarchy respecting the use of the
militia is immediately passed off to the states -- that’s because a militia
is an armed group of able-bodied Freepersons within a state. State rights
are still hotly contested, but the way individuals figure into the debate
seems to be less and less an issue as people ignore the meaning of their
citizenship and the express duties and freedoms of a Freeperson.
|
All too true. But if the militia has to be well regulated, why aren’t the
people who may happen to be called into the militia--regulated by the state or
the federal level--that matters little to me, as long as the regulation is
there. Furthermore, this shows your lack of discernment of the 2nd in the first
place--your reason for the gun is the ‘in case things go to pot’ wheras the 2nd
expressly says the reason that ‘the people’ have the right to bear arms is to
make up the militia when called for to protect freedoms and liberties.
I’m talking specifics, you’re talking semantics. If ‘the people’ are to make up
the ‘well regulated militia’, ‘the people’ should be subject to the same ‘well
regulation’. There’s no semantics about it--you’ve made the excerpts from the
founders, framers, fathers, and they expressly state it. Yet you’re arguing
against it. Why?
| |
| |
So if you’re willing to scrap your entire permanantly armed services
divisions, then I would have no problem conceeding this point.
|
Well, I just want to go by the rule book. I don’t want to get into the
middle of the game only to discover that someone has been keeping track of
the fines and penalties and wants to collect for landing on “free parking” --
that’s not an official rule, it’s an optional rule in the game of Monopoly.
Likewise, and vastly more important in real life, I want to know the rules
ahead of time as much as is possible.
I have no problem conceding anything in the rule book -- the U.S.
Constitution -- indeed, such would be my peference, and I woudl hope the
preference of my fellow citizens. Alas...
| |
When a 4 year old shoots people, that, at least to me, shows neither
discipline nor proper training, nor any reasonable sense of regulation
thereof.
|
Fine, but does that show a flaw in a law or poor parental supervision? I am
not a breeder -- I don’t want to take the time, make the effort, or further
overpopulate the earth. You want the citizenry as a whole to bear the
responsibility of poor child-rearing on the part of others? That’s just
crazy. People have the right to rear their children in any way they see fit.
It’s the case that some elementary school kid was killed in my area by
another child in the last two days -- they had found a sawed-off shotgun and
were playing with it, when boom, the kid gets shot and dies. Tragic. They
have arrested the presumed owner of the gun for negligently hiding the gun in
the backyard. Isn’t that as it should be? Do you imagine I keep my guns in
the backyard or anywhere where children have access to them?
|
I have no idea where you keep your gun--for where’s the regulation, where’s the
“discipline and use” thereof? Where’s the safety checks that should be in the
system as stated by the words “well regulated”. They’re not there and anytime
someone talks about maybe adding some regulation for these instances of 4 year
olds shooting 5 year olds, you and those of the same mind raise a stink. Yet
you’re, in fact, disregarding the 2nd in its entirety--selective understanding
at its finest.
| |
I’m just feeding your madness here, I think the point is irrelevant in
actuality. Although it is a good bid for pathos.
|
Thanks, I was going for the emotional point.
| |
And I could have more far more to say here. But it’s not worth it because
you do not wish to acknowledge the historical meaning of the 2nd Amendment as
usual; or at least, only in part. I mean, I don’t claim to specifically be
an expert and I am not sitting here next to an easily accessible set of
historical references -- it takes me time and effort to look up all these
tedious references even if I’m just digging back through what has gone before
in this very forum. You want to play the “picky-picky” word game you were
playing with Schuler over the word “belief” and I don’t have the time or
inclination to do a mountain of work researching the right to bear arms so
that you can play the “picky-picky” game with all of my citations. It’s been
done, if you really cared you could go buy the necessary references and
inform yourself.
If I had nothing else, I have the de facto right to go buy a gun right now at
Wal-Mart. How do you suppose that right came to exist? Because the clear
meaning of the 2nd Amendment was not well understood, or because it has been
absolutely and firmly understood since the ratification of the Constitition,
and from even sometime before that?
I am not trying to convince you of anything on the broader gun issue. I am
just trying to convince you about the ordinary and de facto meaning of the
2nd Amendment. Yes, the language could have been more precise. Still, the
right is respected in exactly the manner you must acknowledge it is respected
-- with the ability to run out and buy a gun within the next few hours should
I wish to do so.
I am even willing to concede the whole 2nd Amendment argument because I don’t
think it amounts to much really, even though so much has been said and
written in support of much of the above. If the 2nd Amendment can or has been
interpretted to not cover an individual’s right to bear arms, then it must
surely be an unenumerated right under the 9th Amendment. How do I know this?
Because I can go out and buy a gun right now. Blah, Blah, Blah...
And here we come again, to agree to disagree on the broader issue -- having
accomplished almost nothing.
-- Hop-Frog
|
You have the right to do many things in a free society. Where does the right to
buy a car come from? Surely there can be no constitutional arguement there. If
I want to buy a plaid shirt and striped pants, is that covered under the
constitution? I have stated that you have the right to buy guns. I never said
differently. You say the right of gun ownership is covered under the 2nd, and I
will even agree to that--as stated, the “people” have the right to bear arms.
But why that right? Oh wait--the answer to ‘why’ is right there in the very
same sentence--the people were expected to be called up at any time to make the
‘well regulated militia’. That doesn’t happen anymore. Therfore, there could
be a very good arguement that the 2nd is archaic--If you’re not going to be
called up into a milita group and bring your gun with you, the right to bear
arms isn’t there, with regards to the 2nd. It’s not semantics, it’s not
imprecise wording. The words are there, you just choose to ignore them.
As also stated, I’d go so far as to say that if the private gun owner was
subject to the same rules and regulations and training that the armed forces
has, then sure, keep your gun--I could possibly see even that little bit of
‘well regulated’ reducing gun related crimes.
See, it’s the possible reducing of deaths that is my main drive. If there are
laws on the books that cause deaths, and by changing the laws, or the
interpretation thereof, and in that changing we can reduce the number of deaths,
then I’m all for it. Especially when that change doesn’t diminish freedoms and
liberties. And no discussion here, or anywhere else, has convinced me that if
you take away the guns, you reduce the liberties.
And I’d even say that you don’t have to take away the guns of those that have to
undergo the same “or slightly inferior” discipline and use as the armed forces.
What more do you want? It’s a better interprtation of the framers intent than
what I’ve heard here.
As for the rest, someone once said to me that “‘Mericans want their guns in
defiance of all logical and rational debate”. You, sir, have proven them right.
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
|
|
|
|
