Dave Hinz writes:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:28:32 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Oh wait, you're talking about the fourth, not the second. Well then,
that's _completely_ different. I mean, it's not like the second
guarantees the continued existance of the fourth or anything...

Aha, the old "keeps the alligators away" argument. g

This again, Ed?

Evasion noted.

How many shots have you fired in the cause of supporting the Fourth
Amendment, Dave? And who was it you were shooting at?

You don't understand the concept of "don't do (thing), it's too risky",
do you Ed.

No, I don't, and I seriously doubt if you do either, Dave. Why don't you
explain it to us? Tell us about how many alliga...er, Democrats, you've kept
away by threatening them with your guns.

Ed. I never said anything of that sort, so please don't presume to
speak for me. My point, which is blisteringly clear, is that if the
democrats were to disarm us, then when when anyone else tries to take
away the rest of our rights, we'll be powerless to do anything. Nobody
is crossing the line, _because_ we can do something about it if they
try.

Clearer now?

As if you'd get the chance. Rather than play out a Red Dawn fantasy it
would be easier to just get you fired from your job, have sudden "tax
issues" wipe out your savings and then foreclose on your mortgage. No
need for the black helicopters, just have the sherrif evict you and your
house repossessed. You'll be homeless, financial records wrecked
everything you've worked for up in smoke and you & your family living in
an abandoned car keeping yourselves warm with cardboard boxes &
newspaper and rummaging through the trashcans for food before too long.
Better start hoping theres some of those entitlement programs still
running so at least you'll have a chance at a place to take a shower.

But if you really think guns will help, you could go out in a blaze of
glory in a couple hour shootout with the swat team.

Gregm

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

How many shots have you fired in the cause of supporting the Fourth
Amendment, Dave? And who was it you were shooting at?

You don't understand the concept of "don't do (thing), it's too risky",
do you Ed.

No, I don't, and I seriously doubt if you do either, Dave. Why don't you
explain it to us? Tell us about how many alliga...er, Democrats, you've
kept
away by threatening them with your guns.

Ed. I never said anything of that sort, so please don't presume to
speak for me. My point, which is blisteringly clear, is that if the
democrats were to disarm us, then when when anyone else tries to take
away the rest of our rights, we'll be powerless to do anything. Nobody
is crossing the line, _because_ we can do something about it if they
try.

And that, Dave, is the alligator argument. You're keeping them away, because
of a presumed effect you've never tested, but only imagined.

To avoid a long go-around, I'll tell you what I think the 2nd Amendment
does. We can discuss what it *means* another time. g It functions as a
powerful symbol that the citizens of this country are in charge, and let no
one in government forget it. It reinforces the depth and breadth of
individual liberties that we recognize.

These symbolic functions are not to be trivialized. It's actually fun to
watch Europeans and others try to make fun of it, or express horror over it,
because it's perhaps the most important thing that distinguishes us from
them -- and which reminds us how much we don't really want to be like them,
at this fundamental, visceral level.

If that's what you mean by protecting our rights, this figurative sense,
then I agree with you. If you mean it literally, that government stays
within bounds because it fears your guns, then think again. After 200 years
the vast majority of us are strongly attached to this form of government,
which allows extreme opportunity to express our views and to change the
government, and we would no sooner rebel with guns than the people that John
Brown and Tim McVeigh thought would follow them -- but who wound up killing
them instead. You could start a Whiskey Rebellion and die a sorry death. You
could try to be Shay and die despised. What you WON'T do is threaten the
government with your guns and get away with it. Like Brown and McVeigh found
out, there are 100 of us who would kill you before we'd join you, for every
one that would follow you.

So you can think of our government as consisting of intelligent alligators.
They recognize the principle and the context, and the seriousness of this
country's citizens when it comes to protecting what we love. But they don't
fear your guns.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
snip
To avoid a long go-around, I'll tell you what I think the 2nd Amendment
does. We can discuss what it *means* another time. g It functions as a
powerful symbol that the citizens of this country are in charge, and let no
one in government forget it. It reinforces the depth and breadth of
individual liberties that we recognize.

These symbolic functions are not to be trivialized. It's actually fun to
watch Europeans and others try to make fun of it, or express horror over it,
because it's perhaps the most important thing that distinguishes us from
them -- and which reminds us how much we don't really want to be like them,
at this fundamental, visceral level.

If that's what you mean by protecting our rights, this figurative sense,
then I agree with you. If you mean it literally, that government stays
within bounds because it fears your guns, then think again. After 200 years
the vast majority of us are strongly attached to this form of government,
which allows extreme opportunity to express our views and to change the
government, and we would no sooner rebel with guns than the people that John
Brown and Tim McVeigh thought would follow them -- but who wound up killing
them instead. You could start a Whiskey Rebellion and die a sorry death. You
could try to be Shay and die despised. What you WON'T do is threaten the
government with your guns and get away with it. Like Brown and McVeigh found
out, there are 100 of us who would kill you before we'd join you, for every
one that would follow you.

So you can think of our government as consisting of intelligent alligators.
They recognize the principle and the context, and the seriousness of this
country's citizens when it comes to protecting what we love. But they don't
fear your guns.

That's a pretty good write-up, Ed. I agree with most, if not all, of
what you said (I might well agree 100%, but I need to cogitate on it a
bit first).

I've also thought that the 2nd Amendment epitomizes trust. I trust
my fellow citizen with a gun. I may not think he's the smartest guy in
the world, I may not agree with his philosophy or political opinions,
but I trust him to act responsibly. The bargain I'm making is that he
has to trust me, even if he's the opinion that my parents were never
married.

If I don't trust my neighbors enough to own guns, how can I trust
them to keep our Republic?

R,
Tom Q.

--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.

"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
snip
To avoid a long go-around, I'll tell you what I think the 2nd Amendment
does. We can discuss what it *means* another time. g It functions as a
powerful symbol that the citizens of this country are in charge, and let
no
one in government forget it. It reinforces the depth and breadth of
individual liberties that we recognize.

These symbolic functions are not to be trivialized. It's actually fun to
watch Europeans and others try to make fun of it, or express horror over
it,
because it's perhaps the most important thing that distinguishes us from
them -- and which reminds us how much we don't really want to be like
them,
at this fundamental, visceral level.

If that's what you mean by protecting our rights, this figurative sense,
then I agree with you. If you mean it literally, that government stays
within bounds because it fears your guns, then think again. After 200
years
the vast majority of us are strongly attached to this form of government,
which allows extreme opportunity to express our views and to change the
government, and we would no sooner rebel with guns than the people that
John
Brown and Tim McVeigh thought would follow them -- but who wound up
killing
them instead. You could start a Whiskey Rebellion and die a sorry death.
You
could try to be Shay and die despised. What you WON'T do is threaten the
government with your guns and get away with it. Like Brown and McVeigh
found
out, there are 100 of us who would kill you before we'd join you, for
every
one that would follow you.

So you can think of our government as consisting of intelligent
alligators.
They recognize the principle and the context, and the seriousness of this
country's citizens when it comes to protecting what we love. But they
don't
fear your guns.

That's a pretty good write-up, Ed. I agree with most, if not all, of
what you said (I might well agree 100%, but I need to cogitate on it a
bit first).

I've also thought that the 2nd Amendment epitomizes trust. I trust
my fellow citizen with a gun. I may not think he's the smartest guy in
the world, I may not agree with his philosophy or political opinions,
but I trust him to act responsibly. The bargain I'm making is that he
has to trust me, even if he's the opinion that my parents were never
married.

If I don't trust my neighbors enough to own guns, how can I trust
them to keep our Republic?

I've wrestled with that one many times, Tom. And I have to admit that I've
had some neighbors who I *don't* trust with a gun. Or with a paring knife,
for that matter.

What you're saying sounds good and I'd like to believe it. But I'm not sure
that I do.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:21:33 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Ed. I never said anything of that sort, so please don't presume to
speak for me. My point, which is blisteringly clear, is that if the
democrats were to disarm us, then when when anyone else tries to take
away the rest of our rights, we'll be powerless to do anything. Nobody
is crossing the line, _because_ we can do something about it if they
try.

And that, Dave, is the alligator argument. You're keeping them away, because
of a presumed effect you've never tested, but only imagined.

I see. So in Ed's World, personal experience is the only way to learn.
History doesn't teach. Luckily, in the rest of the world, we can learn
from the mistakes of others.

To avoid a long go-around, I'll tell you what I think the 2nd Amendment
does. We can discuss what it *means* another time. g It functions as a
powerful symbol that the citizens of this country are in charge, and let no
one in government forget it. It reinforces the depth and breadth of
individual liberties that we recognize.

I'm waiting for the "but..."

These symbolic functions are not to be trivialized. It's actually fun to
watch Europeans and others try to make fun of it, or express horror over it,
because it's perhaps the most important thing that distinguishes us from
them -- and which reminds us how much we don't really want to be like them,
at this fundamental, visceral level.

If that's what you mean by protecting our rights, this figurative sense,
then I agree with you. If you mean it literally, that government stays
within bounds because it fears your guns, then think again.

And there it is.

So you can think of our government as consisting of intelligent alligators.
They recognize the principle and the context, and the seriousness of this
country's citizens when it comes to protecting what we love. But they don't
fear your guns.

Our opinions differ. Profoundly. And if you don't mind, don't try to
tell me what my points are. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we
don't understand each other. Resorting to mis-stating my position makes
the whole conversation a whole lot less interesting.

Ed Huntress wrote:
Tom Quackenbush wrote in message
snip

If I don't trust my neighbors enough to own guns, how can I trust
them to keep our Republic?

I've wrestled with that one many times, Tom. And I have to admit that I've
had some neighbors who I *don't* trust with a gun. Or with a paring knife,
for that matter.

What you're saying sounds good and I'd like to believe it. But I'm not sure
that I do.

You might be right. I hope not.

Some of our citizens are idiots, I'm sure. I wouldn't trust some of
them near me with a gun, or a chain saw or a car, for that matter. In
a general sense, though, I think that we have to trust our fellow
citizens until they prove themselves untrustworthy.

Like I said, you might be right - but if it's citizens can't be
trusted, how long can a democratic republic last? Self governance is
at least as big a responsibility as wielding a paring knife, no?

R,
Tom Q.

--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:21:33 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Ed. I never said anything of that sort, so please don't presume to
speak for me. My point, which is blisteringly clear, is that if the
democrats were to disarm us, then when when anyone else tries to take
away the rest of our rights, we'll be powerless to do anything. Nobody
is crossing the line, _because_ we can do something about it if they
try.

And that, Dave, is the alligator argument. You're keeping them away,
because
of a presumed effect you've never tested, but only imagined.

I see. So in Ed's World, personal experience is the only way to learn.
History doesn't teach. Luckily, in the rest of the world, we can learn
from the mistakes of others.

Oh, you missed the lessons from history that I pointed out. History can
teach us a lot. And the mistakes you should be learning from are the ones
most relevant to the case at hand: the Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion,
John Brown's Rebellion, and Timothy McVeigh's supposed "rebellion."

Some people use history to learn, others use them to fuel their adolescent
fantasies.


To avoid a long go-around, I'll tell you what I think the 2nd Amendment
does. We can discuss what it *means* another time. g It functions as a
powerful symbol that the citizens of this country are in charge, and let
no
one in government forget it. It reinforces the depth and breadth of
individual liberties that we recognize.

I'm waiting for the "but..."

These symbolic functions are not to be trivialized. It's actually fun to
watch Europeans and others try to make fun of it, or express horror over
it,
because it's perhaps the most important thing that distinguishes us from
them -- and which reminds us how much we don't really want to be like
them,
at this fundamental, visceral level.

If that's what you mean by protecting our rights, this figurative sense,
then I agree with you. If you mean it literally, that government stays
within bounds because it fears your guns, then think again.

And there it is.

So you can think of our government as consisting of intelligent
alligators.
They recognize the principle and the context, and the seriousness of
this
country's citizens when it comes to protecting what we love. But they
don't
fear your guns.

Our opinions differ. Profoundly. And if you don't mind, don't try to
tell me what my points are. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we
don't understand each other. Resorting to mis-stating my position makes
the whole conversation a whole lot less interesting.

I've looked back to see where I misstated your position, but I'm not finding
it. Apparently you object to my characterization of your theory as
"threatening with guns." Perhaps you'd prefer a softer euphemism:
"intimidating," or "coercing" may be better. That's Ok, I'll be glad to
change euphemisms.

But the bottom line, the concrete meaning of what you said is that the
Second Amendment functions by threatening the government with guns.
Otherwise, what role do they fulfill, in your claim about guns protecting
the other amendments? I mean, if you aren't threatening to *use* them, how
do they have any effect?

Maybe you're going to dazzle them with close-order drill on the village
green? d8-)

Anyway, just tell me what it is you object to. If I mischaracterized what
you said, I will retract it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
Tom Quackenbush wrote in message
snip

If I don't trust my neighbors enough to own guns, how can I trust
them to keep our Republic?

I've wrestled with that one many times, Tom. And I have to admit that
I've
had some neighbors who I *don't* trust with a gun. Or with a paring
knife,
for that matter.

What you're saying sounds good and I'd like to believe it. But I'm not
sure
that I do.

You might be right. I hope not.

Some of our citizens are idiots, I'm sure. I wouldn't trust some of
them near me with a gun, or a chain saw or a car, for that matter. In
a general sense, though, I think that we have to trust our fellow
citizens until they prove themselves untrustworthy.

Yes, that's a case of sticking to a principle even when ordinary sense says,
not *this* time, not in *this* case. It's like the conflict some people are
feeling now over Bush's easy dismissal of the Fourth Amendment. For me, this
issue of trusting the guy next to you is in a similar category, and I've
always found it challenging. The Fourth is too important, IMO, let it slide
because we're nervous about some terrorists threatening us.

Tempering that, too, is something my dad told me about fighting in
Guadalcanal. He said he was sometimes surprised about who turned out to be a
good Marine when they were taking fire. Sometimes it was an eight-ball, he
said, who turned out to be the guy you most wanted to watch your back. Then
they went back to civilian life, and they became eight-balls again. d8-)

Maybe that's Crazy Joe, who tends to get a little drunk and a little frisky,
who you don't like to think about walking down Main Street on a Saturday
night with a pistol in his pocket. Maybe he's that eight-ball. When the
going gets tough, maybe he's the guy you want at your side.


Like I said, you might be right - but if it's citizens can't be
trusted, how long can a democratic republic last? Self governance is
at least as big a responsibility as wielding a paring knife, no?

That, too. Good points, all.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" writes:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

But the bottom line, the concrete meaning of what you said is that the
Second Amendment functions by threatening the government with guns.
Otherwise, what role do they fulfill, in your claim about guns protecting
the other amendments? I mean, if you aren't threatening to *use* them, how
do they have any effect?

I think the effect of gun ownership on goverment is fundamentally
symbolic and has been for the the last 100 years or so. The
significance being that the Constitution REQUIRES the government to keep
hands off, in this case to not only forbid it from outlawing guns but to
restrain it in their regulation. So gun ownership is a constant, real
reminder of what the state is NOT supposed to get involved in. By not
being allowed to fundamentally restrict the ownership and use of
dangerous weapons, a standard is set for the degree to which gov't
should leave people alone.

Too bad that doesn't seem to apply equally to the other amendments.

Gregm

"Greg Menke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" writes:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

But the bottom line, the concrete meaning of what you said is that the
Second Amendment functions by threatening the government with guns.
Otherwise, what role do they fulfill, in your claim about guns
protecting
the other amendments? I mean, if you aren't threatening to *use* them,
how
do they have any effect?

I think the effect of gun ownership on goverment is fundamentally
symbolic and has been for the the last 100 years or so. The
significance being that the Constitution REQUIRES the government to keep
hands off, in this case to not only forbid it from outlawing guns but to
restrain it in their regulation. So gun ownership is a constant, real
reminder of what the state is NOT supposed to get involved in. By not
being allowed to fundamentally restrict the ownership and use of
dangerous weapons, a standard is set for the degree to which gov't
should leave people alone.

Yeah, that's about the way I see it, too.


Too bad that doesn't seem to apply equally to the other amendments.

Well, that's the special value of the Second, IMO. It sets the parameter.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:13:12 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Our opinions differ. Profoundly. And if you don't mind, don't try to
tell me what my points are. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we
don't understand each other. Resorting to mis-stating my position makes
the whole conversation a whole lot less interesting.

I've looked back to see where I misstated your position, but I'm not finding
it. Apparently you object to my characterization of your theory as
"threatening with guns." Perhaps you'd prefer a softer euphemism:
"intimidating," or "coercing" may be better. That's Ok, I'll be glad to
change euphemisms.

The part where you think I'm saying that my guns specifically have
stopped democrats, or whatever your rant was. I could google it but
it's not worth the effort.

But the bottom line, the concrete meaning of what you said is that the
Second Amendment functions by threatening the government with guns.

Not by threatening, Ed.

Here, let me give you an example. I live in a rural county. There are
probably shotguns ready for defensive use in 80% or so of the houses.
(I'm an EMT so I get into a _lot_ of houses, and I notice that sort of
thing). There aren't a lot of robberies of houses when people are home.
Do you see how those two things are connected?

The criminals aren't being _threatened_ by the presence of that shotgun,
or by the likely presence of shotguns in general, they're being
_deterred_. Understand now?

Otherwise, what role do they fulfill, in your claim about guns protecting
the other amendments? I mean, if you aren't threatening to *use* them, how
do they have any effect?

You can use a gun in many more ways than just shooting it. It's like
the national parks - you're using them right now, just by the fact that
they exist. You're not there, but the effect they have by existing is
real, regardless of if you're in them or not.

Maybe you're going to dazzle them with close-order drill on the village
green? d8-)

See, there you go again, Ed. You do it so often you don't even see it
when you do.

Anyway, just tell me what it is you object to. If I mischaracterized what
you said, I will retract it.

No, you'll pretend you meant something else. I know your style.

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Ed Huntress says...

First Amendment, Freedom OF Religion and expression thereof.

So, where's the beef? Who has prevented you from practicing or expressing a
religion?

C'mon. SPECIFICS! Don't give us a list of unspecified gripes, tell us about
a case that's been decided badly by those big, bad liberals on the Supreme
Court.

Geeze Gunner, come ON here. You have to holler about that idiot
judge with that stupid Ten Commandmants Tombstone! They borked that
one right off the bat, it wasn't even close.

And how about the Creationism case in PA? Doesn't that one count?
Oh, that was a circuit court, not the USSC.

Gunner must be having a bad day or something. I know I was, had a
gastrointestinal bug all last night.


Thanks for naming a couple. Let me see, the judge with the tombstone
was really "congress" and he was "establishing a (national) religion"
right? I wonder which religion it was.

The PA school board must have also been "congress" and they were doing
the same thing. Good thing they had a special 'science judge'.

Koz wrote:
Gus wrote:

jim rozen wrote:


In article , Gunner says...



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You will notice it also forbids the free expression of religion. Not
to mention freedom of speech.


Good, you have the full text there. But you are still uncertain
about what it means. Your comment at the end indicates some
confusion and is flatly incorrect. Lay it out in its entirety,
the authors were quite stingy with words even if dead-on gramatically
correct:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people..."

and so on.

The first part is the 'establishment' clause. That guarantees
freedom *from* religion, the govenment cannot create state
religions. The second is the free exercise clause which gives
freedom *of* religion - they cannot ban or restrict it with laws.

Notice this stuff only applies TO THE GOVENMENT. None of this
applies to anyone else - corporations, private individuals, etc.



Im still waiting for your cites on the claim you made about :freedom


From religion:

See comments above. For further details take out a book on constituional
law. But those are the standard views of the document. You can put
whatever spin you want on the document, but if you tried to bluster your
way through a first year law class on it you would be laughed out of
the room.

Jim




That was a good explanation but I'm still confused about the freedom
From religion part. Doesn't the First Amendment say that we're free
From the establishment of a (national) religion and nothing else?

If the establishment clause is so obvious, why is it that our friends
in the ACLU have convinced people that the establishment clause also
means that a grade school can't have a Christmas tree or that a town
can't have the 10 Commandments on public property. They always cite
this establishment thing but that's a huge stretch.

It almost seems like they have used the establishment clause to beat
down the free exercise clause.
GW



When a religious symbol or ceremony is allowed (placed by the
authorities or with specific permission of the authorities) in a
publicly owned location, it is implied that the government is condoning
the particular religion involved. There is an easy test....If the
courthouse were to put up a pentagram as a symbol of satan as well as a
list of chaos-laws from the satanic bible, would the other side be
protesting up the yazoo? Of course they would...and the argument would
be that the state was condoning and or establishing that satanism was
part of the government process.

Although more subtle, giving a moment of "silence" for prayer in school
condones and establishes that there IS such a thing as a "higher power"
to commune with. In many cases, there would be extreme pressure on the
minority (for example, a 6 year old atheist in a highly christian area)
to pretend along with the other kids in order to not be chastised for
his/her beliefs. Nothing says that you can't pray for yourself 5000
times a day, it only says that having the state make special time for it
is the same as condoning specific religions which believe in prayer as
well as the notion that there is someone/thing to pray to.

Going even further...what about religions that believe in praying via
banging cymbals and similar? Do you think any school would stand for
the clanging and banging of those student's prayers during that "prayer
minute"? Doubtful. Prayer time in schools is really about CHRISTIAN
prayer time, and is establishing a specific religion.

If you allow christmas trees (taking them as a religious symbol which
they really aren't in my opinion) and symbols/text of other religions in
public locations, you also MUST allow the same for weirder
religions...even those which most consider abhorrent like satanism,
witchcraft, (what would be considered by most to be) cults, etc. To
disallow one while allowing another is very specifically and clearly
condoning a specific religion and therefore establishing the state's
preference for that religion.

Better for all of us to allow individual freedom to worship (or not
worship) in their own way on a personal basis than to open the can of
worms of the state condoning specific religions over others. The rights
of the minority must be protected with the same zealousness as the
majority, even when that minority seems "weird" to most. The best way
to protect the rights of minority religions is just as the framers of
the constitution stated....you can't establish (condone) in any way yet
you can't stop anyone from practicing as they believe. This means that
the state, to stay COMPLETELY neutral, must also stay COMPLETELY out of
it. Freedom FROM religion when it comes to government matters. Freedom
OF religion when it comes to personal matters.

Or, if you live in rural Utah, would you rather have your kids being
pressured to follow Mormon teachings and told by the school, courts and
government that Joseph Smith probably had it right, even though you
believe differently? Maybe excerpts from the book of Mormon should be
on posted outside the courtrooms in Utah as well as pictures of Joseph
Smith appearing in schools. Maybe in Utah, they should be teaching the
Mormon view of the earth's creation as well to "balance" out that nasty
evolutionism being taught. Maybe in school in the morning, all the
Mormon's in your kid's class should be allowed to get together in a
condoned "moment of silence" to pray, leaving your kid and maybe one
other standing by the wayside and feeling pressures of being the "odd
man out". ( Mormon was just picked randomly, by the way, because of the
high percentage in one state (now just below 50% IIRC) as well as the
notion of most Christian religions that they are a cult of some kind. )

Koz

That all makes sense and I agree with it. What I don't agree with is
that the First Amendment says all that. I don't believe that the First
Amendment's "establish" really means "endorse". What they need to do is
pass applicable laws to accomplish what you listed and not blame
everything on the Constitution.
GW

Koz wrote:
Gus wrote:

That was a good explanation but I'm still confused about the freedom
From religion part. Doesn't the First Amendment say that we're free
From the establishment of a (national) religion and nothing else?

If the establishment clause is so obvious, why is it that our friends
in the ACLU have convinced people that the establishment clause also
means that a grade school can't have a Christmas tree or that a town
can't have the 10 Commandments on public property. They always cite
this establishment thing but that's a huge stretch.

It almost seems like they have used the establishment clause to beat
down the free exercise clause.
GW



When a religious symbol or ceremony is allowed (placed by the
authorities or with specific permission of the authorities) in a
publicly owned location, it is implied that the government is condoning
the particular religion involved. There is an easy test....If the
courthouse were to put up a pentagram as a symbol of satan as well as a
list of chaos-laws from the satanic bible, would the other side be
protesting up the yazoo? Of course they would...and the argument would
be that the state was condoning and or establishing that satanism was
part of the government process.

Although more subtle, giving a moment of "silence" for prayer in school
condones and establishes that there IS such a thing as a "higher power"
to commune with. In many cases, there would be extreme pressure on the
minority (for example, a 6 year old atheist in a highly christian area)
to pretend along with the other kids in order to not be chastised for
his/her beliefs. Nothing says that you can't pray for yourself 5000
times a day, it only says that having the state make special time for it
is the same as condoning specific religions which believe in prayer as
well as the notion that there is someone/thing to pray to.

Going even further...what about religions that believe in praying via
banging cymbals and similar? Do you think any school would stand for
the clanging and banging of those student's prayers during that "prayer
minute"? Doubtful. Prayer time in schools is really about CHRISTIAN
prayer time, and is establishing a specific religion.

If you allow christmas trees (taking them as a religious symbol which
they really aren't in my opinion) and symbols/text of other religions in
public locations, you also MUST allow the same for weirder
religions...even those which most consider abhorrent like satanism,
witchcraft, (what would be considered by most to be) cults, etc. To
disallow one while allowing another is very specifically and clearly
condoning a specific religion and therefore establishing the state's
preference for that religion.

Better for all of us to allow individual freedom to worship (or not
worship) in their own way on a personal basis than to open the can of
worms of the state condoning specific religions over others. The rights
of the minority must be protected with the same zealousness as the
majority, even when that minority seems "weird" to most. The best way
to protect the rights of minority religions is just as the framers of
the constitution stated....you can't establish (condone) in any way yet
you can't stop anyone from practicing as they believe. This means that
the state, to stay COMPLETELY neutral, must also stay COMPLETELY out of
it. Freedom FROM religion when it comes to government matters. Freedom
OF religion when it comes to personal matters.

Or, if you live in rural Utah, would you rather have your kids being
pressured to follow Mormon teachings and told by the school, courts and
government that Joseph Smith probably had it right, even though you
believe differently? Maybe excerpts from the book of Mormon should be
on posted outside the courtrooms in Utah as well as pictures of Joseph
Smith appearing in schools. Maybe in Utah, they should be teaching the
Mormon view of the earth's creation as well to "balance" out that nasty
evolutionism being taught. Maybe in school in the morning, all the
Mormon's in your kid's class should be allowed to get together in a
condoned "moment of silence" to pray, leaving your kid and maybe one
other standing by the wayside and feeling pressures of being the "odd
man out". ( Mormon was just picked randomly, by the way, because of the
high percentage in one state (now just below 50% IIRC) as well as the
notion of most Christian religions that they are a cult of some kind. )

All of the above makes sense and I agree with it. What I don't agree
with is
that the First Amendment says all that. I don't believe that the First
Amendment's "establish" really means "endorse". It was talking about
establishing a national religion and good judges have stretched the
meaning to fit what they WANT it to say.

What they need to do is pass applicable laws to accomplish what you
listed and not blame everything on the Constitution. That way the
law-making would be in the hands of the legislature, where it belongs,
and not with unaccountable judges.

GW

In article .com, Gus says...

If the establishment clause is so obvious, why is it that our friends
in the ACLU have convinced people that the establishment clause also
means that a grade school can't have a Christmas tree or that a town
can't have the 10 Commandments on public property.

Because there's always some yahoo judge who wants to have the
ten comandments tombstone in his courthouse. This is a give
and take thing. Every issue can be litigated and no doubt will
be.

This is why we have courts. They get to decide. That's what they
do.

The ACLU didn't make the law, they didn't make the decision. They
just said, let's see what the courts have to say about this. What's
wrong with that approach?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress says...

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
C'mon, Gunner, can't you come up with a single one? Is all of your
ranting,
after all, based on bull**** and blue smoke?

No, wait, scratch that...another tautology...g

Still waiting Ed.

Gunner

I see a man with a beard and a holstered gun standing at a podium, looking
at his watch, and then out at the audience...looking at his watch, and then
out at the audience...

Finally, he says his first words to the audience: "Well, aren't you going to
say anything?" ggg

Hey, Gunner, let's try it again. You said something about the TV networks
not covering Clinton's "poncho" remark in Romania or somewhere. I asked how
you knew they didn't cover it. You apparently don't know, so you started
spinning.

You're going to screw yourself into the ground like a posthole auger if you
keep it up. d8-)

The ultimate staredown contest. Who's gonna blink first, he said
as he began to eat his lunch....

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Jim,

Here's what's wrong: The ACLU robs productivity from people who have better
things to do. Given enough time, the ACLU will bring the country to its'
knees. Is that really what you favor? At times it seems so.

George Willer

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article .com, Gus
says...

If the establishment clause is so obvious, why is it that our friends
in the ACLU have convinced people that the establishment clause also
means that a grade school can't have a Christmas tree or that a town
can't have the 10 Commandments on public property.

Because there's always some yahoo judge who wants to have the
ten comandments tombstone in his courthouse. This is a give
and take thing. Every issue can be litigated and no doubt will
be.

This is why we have courts. They get to decide. That's what they
do.

The ACLU didn't make the law, they didn't make the decision. They
just said, let's see what the courts have to say about this. What's
wrong with that approach?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Not original to me, but I like it:

The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse is
that you cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit
Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges
and politicians; It creates a hostile work environment.

"George Willer" wrote in message
...
Jim,

Here's what's wrong: The ACLU robs productivity from people who have
better things to do. Given enough time, the ACLU will bring the country
to its' knees. Is that really what you favor? At times it seems so.

George Willer

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article .com, Gus
says...

If the establishment clause is so obvious, why is it that our friends
in the ACLU have convinced people that the establishment clause also
means that a grade school can't have a Christmas tree or that a town
can't have the 10 Commandments on public property.

Because there's always some yahoo judge who wants to have the
ten comandments tombstone in his courthouse. This is a give
and take thing. Every issue can be litigated and no doubt will
be.

This is why we have courts. They get to decide. That's what they
do.

The ACLU didn't make the law, they didn't make the decision. They
just said, let's see what the courts have to say about this. What's
wrong with that approach?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

dondone wrote:
Not original to me, but I like it:

The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse is
that you cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit
Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges
and politicians; It creates a hostile work environment.

"George Willer" wrote in message
...


Ha ha.....Finally, something that makes sense!
GW

jim rozen wrote:
The ACLU didn't make the law, they didn't make the decision. They
just said, let's see what the courts have to say about this. What's
wrong with that approach?

There's nothing wrong with that approach. What they actually do is to
threaten a town or school and say that if you lose the lawsuit we'll
make you pay our expenses and pretty much bankrupt you. That approach
is what works best for them, I'd call it intimidation.
GW

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...

You're going to screw yourself into the ground like a posthole auger if
you
keep it up. d8-)

The ultimate staredown contest. Who's gonna blink first, he said
as he began to eat his lunch....

Gunner doesn't blink. He's asleep with his eyes open.

Maybe you want to ask what it is he's waiting for. g

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Gunner says...

Now just *how* are you gonna blame that one on clinton?

Why would I?

That's your favorite plaintive cry. The big bad bill did it.

So..hows Mary Jo Kopechne these days?

About the same as ollie north, and that poindexter guy.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:13:12 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Our opinions differ. Profoundly. And if you don't mind, don't try to
tell me what my points are. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we
don't understand each other. Resorting to mis-stating my position
makes
the whole conversation a whole lot less interesting.

I've looked back to see where I misstated your position, but I'm not
finding
it. Apparently you object to my characterization of your theory as
"threatening with guns." Perhaps you'd prefer a softer euphemism:
"intimidating," or "coercing" may be better. That's Ok, I'll be glad to
change euphemisms.

The part where you think I'm saying that my guns specifically have
stopped democrats, or whatever your rant was. I could google it but
it's not worth the effort.

Well, let's take that one apart and see what we can learn from it. First
off, I'll retract the Democrats part. I don't know who you're planning to
shoo...er, "deter," but we can pull back from that one without losing the
gist of the discussion.

You say the effect is one of "don't do (thing), it's too risky." So, what
makes it risky? Is there a threat to use the gun involved? No? Then there's
no risk. End of problem.

But you say there is a risk. You're playing casuist -- or maybe sophist --
with an idea that makes no sense unless there's a threat to USE your guns.
That's what the "deterrent" is: the threat that you will shoot somebody. If
you aren't making that threat, if you don't intend it to be understood that
you will USE that gun, then the gun has no effect. It's a wall decoration.

You're making the threat. That's how your "deterrence" works. It's like the
"deterrence" the US has with our nuclear weapons. We have made an implied
threat that we will use them. If we aren't threatening that, then we're just
warming holes in the ground with our missiles.

"Deterrent," though, is the kind of word you can use at a church social.
Nobody would miss the fact that it's the *threat to use it* that is the
actual deterrent. But "deterrent" is one of those words that gets through
the moral filter. It's a euphemism that makes one feel better about himself.
You can say it while looking grave and passing the potato salad.

That's what casuists do, Dave. They take raw, rough, down-to-earth ideas,
and apply lofty-sounding abstractions to make them morally palatable for
polite society. That's what you're doing here.

One more time: There is no deterrent without the THREAT you will shoot
somebody. If there is no threat you will shoot, there is no deterrent.
Scrape away the lofty moralisms and you're threatening somebody with your
guns. Otherwise, they're wall decorations that deter
no--one--from--doing--any--thing.

Not by threatening, Ed.

Here, let me give you an example. I live in a rural county. There are
probably shotguns ready for defensive use in 80% or so of the houses.
(I'm an EMT so I get into a _lot_ of houses, and I notice that sort of
thing). There aren't a lot of robberies of houses when people are home.
Do you see how those two things are connected?

Of course. Potential invaders and robbers know that having a gun for
"defensive use" means they are ready to shoot said invaders and robbers. The
home owners are threatening any potential invaders with getting shot and
killed. It's the threat that keeps them from robbing.

The shotguns aren't threatening to shoot them. It's the people in the house
who are threatening to shoot them. If there is no such threat, the robbers
don't care about the guns in the closet or on the wall. But they know the
home owners are making such a threat. That's the reality that pokes through
the veil of "deterrence," and that turns the vague moralism into the blast
of lead shot in the face. That's the reality that keeps them from robbing.


The criminals aren't being _threatened_ by the presence of that shotgun,
or by the likely presence of shotguns in general, they're being
_deterred_. Understand now?

Uh, yeah, I understand. What I understand is that you're floating on a
pillow of abstractions, about 50 feet off the ground. g The THREAT of
getting a blast of lead shot in the face is the reality behind the
abstraction. That's why they aren't robbing. They don't care about no
steenking "deterrence." They care about the prospect of taking on a load of
lead.


Otherwise, what role do they fulfill, in your claim about guns
protecting
the other amendments? I mean, if you aren't threatening to *use* them,
how
do they have any effect?

You can use a gun in many more ways than just shooting it.

Yeah, you can use them as bud vases for long-stemmed roses. One gun, one
rose.

It's like
the national parks - you're using them right now, just by the fact that
they exist. You're not there, but the effect they have by existing is
real, regardless of if you're in them or not.

Uh-oh, is that the park where the tree falls, but no one is there to hear
it? Does it make a noise? d8-) If you're going to do zen or ontology now,
I'm outta here.


Maybe you're going to dazzle them with close-order drill on the village
green? d8-)

See, there you go again, Ed. You do it so often you don't even see it
when you do.

Geez, what did I do? I thought I made a funny wisecrack.


Anyway, just tell me what it is you object to. If I mischaracterized
what
you said, I will retract it.

No, you'll pretend you meant something else.

No need to pretend, Dave. Just tell it like it is, but lighten up on the
moralized abstractions and get down to the reality on which they're built.
It makes communication a lot easier.

I know your style.

It's taken years to perfect. gg

--
Ed Huntress

In article , George Willer says...

Jim,

Here's what's wrong: The ACLU robs productivity from people who have better
things to do.

So does that war in iraq. That one costs a hell of a lot more for a week
that the aclu budget does for a decade.

Besides, what ever happened to the free market? Walmart can do whatever
they like, but a bunch of lawyers need Mr. Willer's seal of approval
to go into business? What would you do, pass a law against lawyers?

Then how would all those poor republicans find folks to defend them
in all those indictments?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article .com, Gus says...

There's nothing wrong with that approach. What they actually do is to
threaten a town or school and say that if you lose the lawsuit we'll
make you pay our expenses and pretty much bankrupt you.

Sounds like what happens when the PA folks tried to cram creationism
into their schools. They lost, and they had to pay.

This is how it works in the US, gus. Ya do something stupid and
actionable, yer gonna get sued. If you loose, you wind up paying
out.

The lesson here is, don't do stupid stuff, like putting bible tombstones
in your courthouse. It's the legal equivalent of painting a bulls-eye
on yourself and running around in the woods on the first day of
hunting season.

I would say that folks complain a heck of a lot about the legal
system in the US when their pet ox gets poked. Then there's all
kinds of hollering and foot stamping. But the system never does
get changed, does it? Half the times it's the other ox getting
stuck.

Tell ya what, I'll agree that the aclu should close up shop about the
same time that jerry fallwell and that other dobson guy eliminate
*their* circus.

Folks who complain loudest about our legal system here are sure
free to move to some other country where we've spent a lot of taxpayer
dollars to be sure their legal system has a strong moral, religous
underpinning.

Sharia.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress says...

...It's the threat that keeps them from robbing.

Sometimes it's actually being *shot* that does that.

The idea being that if somebody is wandering around
in your house at night, and you can tell they don't
live there, sometimes under some circumstances (obviously
not all) a threat is counterproductive.

You don't show the gun, you don't announce your
intentions. You just shoot them. Robbery over.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

...It's the threat that keeps them from robbing.

Sometimes it's actually being *shot* that does that.

The idea being that if somebody is wandering around
in your house at night, and you can tell they don't
live there, sometimes under some circumstances (obviously
not all) a threat is counterproductive.

You don't show the gun, you don't announce your
intentions. You just shoot them. Robbery over.

I didn't say "brandish." But what you're suggesting isn't much of a
deterrent. They're too dead to be deterred, like Justice Thomas's
Constitution.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:51:52 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

The part where you think I'm saying that my guns specifically have
stopped democrats, or whatever your rant was. I could google it but
it's not worth the effort.

Well, let's take that one apart and see what we can learn from it. First
off, I'll retract the Democrats part.

Gosh, that's awfully nice of you to partially stop putting words in my
mouth.

I don't know who you're planning to
shoo...er, "deter," but we can pull back from that one without losing the
gist of the discussion.

You don't understand that you don't have to shoot someone in order to
keep them from harming you, do you. You just don't GET that. There is
a difference, Ed, between an easy, safe-to-attack target, and a target
which is dangerous to attack. If you know they're disarmed, they're an
_easy target_. I don't know how I can make it any more obvious, Ed.

(snip more word-games bull**** from Ed)

That's what casuists do, Dave. They take raw, rough, down-to-earth ideas,

(FFS...it just goes on and on, dunnit...)

One more time: There is no deterrent without the THREAT you will shoot
somebody. If there is no threat you will shoot, there is no deterrent.

And if your people (spare me the "they're not my people") disarm the
populace, then we're a SAFE TARGET, Ed.

Scrape away the lofty moralisms and you're threatening somebody with your
guns. Otherwise, they're wall decorations that deter
no--one--from--doing--any--thing.

You still don't get it.

Here, let me give you an example. I live in a rural county. There are
probably shotguns ready for defensive use in 80% or so of the houses.
(I'm an EMT so I get into a _lot_ of houses, and I notice that sort of
thing). There aren't a lot of robberies of houses when people are home.
Do you see how those two things are connected?

Of course. Potential invaders and robbers know that having a gun for
"defensive use" means they are ready to shoot said invaders and robbers. The
home owners are threatening any potential invaders with getting shot and
killed. It's the threat that keeps them from robbing.

No, it's the knowledge that there _might be a threat_. Not that "Old
Joe up there on the hill will shoot me", it's that "most houses around
here have armed people so I'd better behave".

The criminals aren't being _threatened_ by the presence of that shotgun,
or by the likely presence of shotguns in general, they're being
_deterred_. Understand now?

Uh, yeah, I understand. What I understand is that you're floating on a
pillow of abstractions, about 50 feet off the ground. g The THREAT of
getting a blast of lead shot in the face is the reality behind the
abstraction. That's why they aren't robbing. They don't care about no
steenking "deterrence." They care about the prospect of taking on a load of
lead.

That's what deterrance is, Ed.

You know what? You haven't made any new points for several messages.
It's just wordgames for you, isn't it. Well, find someone else to play.
You bore me.

It's like
the national parks - you're using them right now, just by the fact that
they exist. You're not there, but the effect they have by existing is
real, regardless of if you're in them or not.

Uh-oh, is that the park where the tree falls, but no one is there to hear
it? Does it make a noise? d8-) If you're going to do zen or ontology now,
I'm outta here.

Once again you completely miss the point.

Maybe you're going to dazzle them with close-order drill on the village
green? d8-)

See, there you go again, Ed. You do it so often you don't even see it
when you do.

Geez, what did I do? I thought I made a funny wisecrack.

Anyway, just tell me what it is you object to. If I mischaracterized
what
you said, I will retract it.

No, you'll pretend you meant something else.

No need to pretend, Dave. Just tell it like it is, but lighten up on the
moralized abstractions and get down to the reality on which they're built.
It makes communication a lot easier.

I know your style.

It's taken years to perfect. gg

And only milliseconds to programattically ignore. plonk

In article , Ed Huntress says...

You don't show the gun, you don't announce your
intentions. You just shoot them. Robbery over.

I didn't say "brandish." But what you're suggesting isn't much of a
deterrent. They're too dead to be deterred, like Justice Thomas's
Constitution.

I wasn't arguing about deterrance of course. I think that in
this regard, gunners approach to the issue is (gasp) correct.
They are a tool, and like any other tool there is a right way
and a wrong way to use guns. Displaying or brandishing them
seems counterproductive. Used in that mode they probably cause
more problems than they solve.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

You don't show the gun, you don't announce your
intentions. You just shoot them. Robbery over.

I didn't say "brandish." But what you're suggesting isn't much of a
deterrent. They're too dead to be deterred, like Justice Thomas's
Constitution.

I wasn't arguing about deterrance of course. I think that in
this regard, gunners approach to the issue is (gasp) correct.
They are a tool, and like any other tool there is a right way
and a wrong way to use guns. Displaying or brandishing them
seems counterproductive. Used in that mode they probably cause
more problems than they solve.

When people start talking about their justifications for the 2nd Amendment,
things usually get slippery. First, the typical ones talk about keeping our
own government from lapsing into tyrany. Then comes protection against
outside invaders. Individual self-defense comes into the picture at some
convenient point, and that has two branches that lead off in different
directions themselves: concealed carry, and the "everybody knows that
eveyone has a shotgun at home in this town," "deterrence" argument, which we
just dabbled in.

There's nothing wrong with these ideas in principle, and they all can be
discussed reasonably. The frustrating part is that they tend to leap from
one to the other when the discussion takes a turn that they find
inconvenient.

To use one of Gunner's analogies, it's like herding cats. They want to go
off in all directions at once before any individual issue is fully explored.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote

When people start talking about their justifications for
the 2nd Amendment, things usually get slippery.


You're right, Ed. But the bottom line always seems to be:
"We need guns to defend our 2nd Amendment rights" :-)

-- TP

Ed Huntress wrote:
snip

To use one of Gunner's analogies, it's like herding cats. They want to go
off in all directions at once before any individual issue is fully explored.

Speaking of which ....

Hey, Gunner - I think I found a gig for you:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...91681481453187

R,
Tom Q.

--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.

"tonyp" wrote in message
news

"Ed Huntress" wrote

When people start talking about their justifications for
the 2nd Amendment, things usually get slippery.


You're right, Ed. But the bottom line always seems to be:
"We need guns to defend our 2nd Amendment rights" :-)

Well, of course. It's the right that protects all other rights. So we need
guns to defend it. So we can defend our right to have guns. Which means we
need guns to defend it. So we can defend our right to have guns. Which means
we need guns to defend it. So we can defend our right to have guns. So we
can defend our right to have guns. So we can...

--
Ed Huntress

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:51:52 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
Here, let me give you an example. I live in a rural county. There are
probably shotguns ready for defensive use in 80% or so of the houses.
(I'm an EMT so I get into a _lot_ of houses, and I notice that sort of
thing). There aren't a lot of robberies of houses when people are
home.
Do you see how those two things are connected?

Of course. Potential invaders and robbers know that having a gun for
"defensive use" means they are ready to shoot said invaders and robbers.
The
home owners are threatening any potential invaders with getting shot and
killed. It's the threat that keeps them from robbing.

No, it's the knowledge that there _might be a threat_. Not that "Old
Joe up there on the hill will shoot me", it's that "most houses around
here have armed people so I'd better behave".

If Old Joe won't shoot me, I can rob him blind. Whether his threat is real
or fake, he's making the threat. If he weren't, I wouldn't be "deterred."

You're making progress, Dave. You'll get down to concrete reality soon. And
the concrete reality is this: If you aren't threatening to shoot me, if you
won't really shoot, your gun is nothing more than a piece of clumsy jewelry.
You're no deterrence at all.

They don't care about no
steenking "deterrence." They care about the prospect of taking on a load
of
lead.

That's what deterrance is, Ed.

You're getting warmer. It's that load of lead, not the gun in your closet,
that's the deterrence. It's the threat that you'll actually pull the
trigger.


You know what? You haven't made any new points for several messages.
It's just wordgames for you, isn't it. Well, find someone else to play.
You bore me.

Ah, but Dave, you're so full of fresh ideas yourself, that you will be
sorely missed. d8-)

"Word games" is a good phrase for the whole melange of avoidances, moralized
abstractions, juvenile fantasies, and self-delusions that make up the
stockade of beliefs surrounding philosophized defense of gun ownership. When
you strip it down to its guts, what it consists of is the threat you'll
shoot and kill anyone who transgresses your perimeter.

If you can face that, and quit pumping yourself up with hot air about
"deterrence" while you simultaneously discuss the proper caliber and
downrange velocity for reliable killing of human beings, you'll be able to
face that it's your threats -- overt in your case, implied in the case of
people who don't talk about it -- that have the effect you desire. And that
effect is to scare people into leaving you alone.

So be it. There's a strong case to be made for scaring people into leaving
you alone. But when you perfume it and doll it up with lofty abstractions,
you lose sight of what it is you're saying. What you're saying is, stay out,
or I'll blow half your face off with a blast of lead shot from this shotgun.

Have a good night's rest. Maybe reality will visit you before you wake, and
you'll get it.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

When people start talking about their justifications for the 2nd Amendment,
things usually get slippery.

Honestly though, there's precious little discussion about 'justification'
for any of the bill of rights in courtrooms. Lots of discussion about
interpretation, and lots of discussion about 'does some law run afoul
of a piece of the bill of right' but you don't usually get into the
"why is it there" question.

All of them are parts of our constitution, and everyone agrees on that.

But nobody says well, we really don't need guns, or we really don't
need warrants, or we really don't need to keep religion and government
separate, or it's really OK to impose prior restraint on the press.

Oops, excuse me. I seem to have accidentally take a timewarp trip back
into the 60s. Dang it's happening more and more these days.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article .com, Gus says...

Thanks for naming a couple. Let me see, the judge with the tombstone
was really "congress"

Another person clueless about the US constitution, and what the
14th amendment really means.

Short quiz: 1) is the tombstone still there? 2) is the judge still
a judge?

Consider your answers before going back and answering your own
question in the affirmative, as far as the first amendment is
concerned.

Don't like that? Move to a more religious country. Try Iraq,
they have sharia.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:51:52 -0500, Ed Huntress

wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
Here, let me give you an example. I live in a rural county.
There are probably shotguns ready for defensive use in 80% or so
of the houses. (I'm an EMT so I get into a _lot_ of houses, and I
notice that sort of thing). There aren't a lot of robberies of
houses when people are home. Do you see how those two things are
connected?



So be it. There's a strong case to be made for scaring people into
leaving you alone. But when you perfume it and doll it up with lofty
abstractions, you lose sight of what it is you're saying. What you're
saying is, stay out, or I'll blow half your face off with a blast of
lead shot from this shotgun.


Which is why it's not much concern to "the government", or whatever anyone
wants to call the big brother monolith today.
In the end, if either law enforcement or the armed forces gets the call to
act, they won't be deterred. They'll just do it, and they have better
training, discipline and hardware. The only requirement will be a lawful
order so you see, what protects the publics right to bear arms isn't the
arms themselves. It is the belief in the rule of law and faith in those
giving the orders that counts. Absent those, your just ****ed. It is that
simple and is the reason I am astounded that more people aren't shouting
from the roof tops about those rights that have already been surrendered.
Maybe they are just stupid.

I know of no instance in recent times where an armed force of civilians in
the US has prevailed against the armed agencies of the government. Not the
SLA, not the Weather Underground, not at Waco, not Ruby Ridge, not anywhere
in my lifetime. Criminal acts are another matter, you might deter a burgular
or mugger if he or she thought they would be facing an armed victim. That I
can buy.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

When people start talking about their justifications for the 2nd
Amendment,
things usually get slippery.

Honestly though, there's precious little discussion about 'justification'
for any of the bill of rights in courtrooms. Lots of discussion about
interpretation, and lots of discussion about 'does some law run afoul
of a piece of the bill of right' but you don't usually get into the
"why is it there" question.

That's the discussion for around the cracker barrel. All the Supreme Court,
in particular, has to do with it is to decide what's constitutional.

All of them are parts of our constitution, and everyone agrees on that.

But nobody says well, we really don't need guns, or we really don't
need warrants, or we really don't need to keep religion and government
separate, or it's really OK to impose prior restraint on the press.

Hmm. Herr Bush seems to disagree with you. And he's such a fine
constitutional scholar, you know. 'Went to Yale and all that. g

--
Ed Huntress

Criminal acts are another matter, you might deter a burgular
or mugger if he or she thought they would be facing an armed victim. That
I
can buy.

But that has nothing to do with a "well regulated militia' does it?

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

Glenn Ashmore wrote:
Criminal acts are another matter, you might deter a burgular
or mugger if he or she thought they would be facing an armed victim.
That I
can buy.

But that has nothing to do with a "well regulated militia' does it?

Nothing, in fact, but other than hunting and sport shooting that's about all
guns are good for except personal protection and that falls into the same
category.
It's only my own opinion but I just don't think Americans are ready enough
to pull the trigger on recognized authority figures for there to be much of
a deterrent effect. I can't help but remember the NG troops in all of our
airports right after 9/11. Another terrorist attack right away and they
might even have been allowed to load their weapon.


In any event, our constitution guarantees us all the right to bear arms and
rather than pussy footing around, anyone wanting to change that ought to
make the effort to try and amend the constitution.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com