To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 22679
22678  |  22680
Subject: 
Re: Jefferson on Copyright and Patent
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:22:24 GMT
Viewed: 
130 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
   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

Now this is a good way to wrap it up :) I concur with the above.

Thanks Hoppy.

Dave K



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Jefferson on Copyright and Patent
 
(...) 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. (...) (21 years ago, 29-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

5 Messages in This Thread:


Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR