Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 1999 18:04:45 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs.missouriNOSPAM.edu
|
Viewed:
|
801 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Dee wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 May 1999 14:53:43 GMT, Christopher L. Weeks uttered the following
> profundities...
> > Richard Dee wrote:
> > >
> > > (When considering flameage in your replies, remember I am
> > > actually half-American, by way of my father).
> >
> > How would that change anything?
>
> It wouldn't generally, but might temper the reaction of "stupid
> bloody foreigner!" That could instead be "half-stupid, half-
> foreigner!"
You know, I don't get that. I've seen lots of newsgroups explode into
US v. Canada or US v. UK debates, and its always so silly. Ultimately,
you get a tiny little say in what goes on in your government and I get a
tiny little say in mine, but we can still discuss philosophy of issues
without being childish. Or, at least, we should be able to.
> Many of the points you have raised have been raised elsewhere,
> and would refer you to those other posts. (Not yet posted!
> Give me a chance! 2 of them are detailed, half-way finished
OK, I'll keep reading.
> > > What real justification?
> >
> > I'll still stand by the 2nd Amendment, though it appears you'll be
> > misrepresenting it shortly.
>
> Probably! Its been more than 12 years since I was in US High School.
It's really easy. "A well regulated militia being necessary to a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be
infringed." And only the part after the comma is important because the
first clause is merely justification. From my perspective if we can
agree on the meaning of an 'arm' and to 'infringe' then the whole
argument goes the way I see it. Which is that I, as a citizen of the
USA, have complete rights to own and operate in a safe manner _any_ tool
that could reasonably be considered a weapon. (People freak out when I
state this, because I mean weapons of mass destruction too, but that's
what the law says...we have a process for changing it if we think it's wrong.)
> > there, and I've profited from it, so I don't complain too much.) I
> > think there was lots of reason (inarguably) for firearms to be
> > commonplace at the time.
>
> But somewhat less-so justification now, or more so? Discounting the
> personal protection element. (A point which I *might* concede to having
> *possible* justification, in light of how heavily armed criminals and
> neighbours are).
As others (Larry maybe) have pointed out, justification isn't really the
point over here. It is simply a right and an important part of out
collective national heritage. You might concede the self-protection
point in light of armed criminals and neighbors, but what about our own
government? This is more important in my mind because it's the direct
cause of the 2nd existing.
> someone more significant, I don't remember)). An attempt to point
> out the fact that the West (UK, US, French, others), today's "Global Police,"
> are as guilty of the same crimes they are trying to right in the present,
> that they had committed in the past.
When I was a kid, I used to make certain memorable mistakes. Now I have
a little boy of my own, and I try (often futilely) to help him not make
the same ones. Some of my later childish mistakes were criminal acts of
victimization (most often property) and were patently evil. It seems by
your logic (maybe this isn't what you mean to imply?) that since I made
those mistakes, I am now unable to try to stop others from that. The US
did some bad things (native genocide, maybe dropping the bomb on Japan?,
etc.). We now try to help other governments avoid those poor choices.
> Does anyone hate the term "ethnic cleansing" as much as I do? What
> seems to be an attempt at making a nicer term for genocide is in
> itself racist and derrogatory! Suggesting that there is recognition
> of the fact that a particular group is in anyway dirty! Let's not
> try to be so nice about something so horrid.
I agree. I prefer genocide. (I mean as a term, not an activity :-)
> > What if I cited lots of numbers suggesting you were wrong? I've done
> > this for people before, but the typical response is "Oh yeah, but those
> > are your numbers, I could find equally significant studies on the
> > opposite side" (but of course they've never produced them) or "Yeah,
> > yeah, yeah, anyone can make numbers say anything...don't you know you
> > can't trust studies."
>
> I would be interested to see them. I am, after all, interested in the
I only have one book on my desk right now to reference, but I have
others at home and there are other in the library. See _The Great
American Gun Debate_ by Don B. Kates, Jr. and Gary Kleck. They set out
to demonstrate that guns cause crime and their research turned them
around and they use this book to explain why many popular notions about
gun control are wrong. They also acknowledge that they don't have all
the answers.
> Crime figures for the UK would suggest that that
> supposition had some validity, but probably not so for the US.
I wonder how much and why they two situations are different.
> Conflicting studies can be used to form a vague middle ground, though.
I agree that this a place to start, but genuine critical analysis
requires that we check out the studies for procedural flaws and the
like...lots of hard work really.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Nitpick: You got the wording slightly wrong (which can make a world of difference if you start analyzing it) "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: New Web Page
|
| Hi! (...) <culturerant> I'm from Detroit. Half of my family came from Ontario in the early decades of this century; the other half is from Ohio. I've got Canadian, English, Welsh, Norman, Saxon, Oneida, and Lord knows what other identity. What's (...) (25 years ago, 15-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) The main beef I have with foreigners is that, for the most part, their money is prettier than ours. Who the hell picked green as the color of money? (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| On Thu, 13 May 1999 14:53:43 GMT, Christopher L. Weeks uttered the following profundities... (...) It wouldn't generally, but might temper the reaction of "stupid bloody foreigner!" That could instead be "half-stupid, half- foreigner!" (...) (...) (25 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
