Subject:
|
Re: Jefferson on Copyright and Patent
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:46:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
139 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
What if I have a problem with bearing arms that has nothing to do with
religious scruples?
|
One of the definitions of “religious” is “extremely scrupulous or
conscientious.” That’s how you get the term “conscientious objector.”
Basically, the phrase just exempts someone with a strong philosophical objection
to keeping or using arms.
BTW, all I have been trying to do of late is to set aside the argument over the
meaning of the 2nd Amendment -- I think the meaning is profoundly clear and I
think that I have shown that that is the case from a variety of perspectives.
But that’s specific to the U.S. and is merely a legal formality.
It doesn’t go to your larger moral question on the use of deadly force, and the
issue of whether such deadly force should be in the hands of individuals. I have
disagreed with that view in the past and I have cited reasons for my objection
to your views. Rather like the quote suggests -- it’s probably a personal
matter. I think we have agreed to disagree on this one. I hope you realize that
we wouldn’t even argue about it except for the fact that I respect your view on
guns and find it’s greater concerns worthy of investigation.
I guess I just think that having more laws doesn’t do anyone any good. To
achieve the goals of peace and non-violence we have to truly move beyond who and
what we are today as human beings.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
5 Messages in This Thread:
   
- 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
|
|
|
|
