--- "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please bear in mind that those few Federalist papers
> were the ones dealing
> with the disposition and control of the army and
> militia, and, being the
> Federalist papers, were written by several of the
> Constitution's chief
> architects.
>
I think i'm going to pass the torch to the much better
qualified Gautam here.
> > Perhaps it's a failing of mine, but I like to step
> > back and look at the big picture to evaluate how
> > specifics effect it. I must ask you, do you
> dismiss
> > other people's arguments so unilaterally when they
> try
> > and put into words their thoughts on a particular
> > legal or social climate? I believe I deserve
> better,
> > and if there's something that i've said which you
> > don't believe follows the tenants of civilized
> debate,
> > let me have it.
>
> Perhaps I was unclear: I wasn't unilaterally
> dismissing your opinion. I
> just didn't understand the gist of it.
>
Ah, well it would seem i'm being defensive and that's
clouding my perceptions. Another time, perhaps. I'm
fairly sure that I would write something to rival 'the
shining city on the hill' for its inflammatory-ness.
=)
> > Are you making a general statement or intimating
> that
> > I would like to obligate everyone to buy guns?
> You
> > would be incorrect even if you were accusing the
> NRA
> > themselves. And if I saw commercials like what
> you
> > describe, I might very well suddenly feel that i'm
> not
> > on the productive side of the equation.
>
> I'm not inferring your personal position on this or
> any issue. Rather,
> I'm making a general statement, mainly as a
> counterexample to wit: to
> try to work for social change through the
> government--of which we are all
> supposed to be a part by virtue of citizenship--is
> not the same as
> abandoning, or advocating that people abandon, their
> private
> responsbilities. (Any more than helping one's
> church help the poor is an
> attempt to excuse the poor of responsibility for
> themselves.)
>
> In other words, the fact that we use the government
> to try to help
> some of the poor f*cked up souls in the world
> doesn't imply that we
> wouldn't rather those souls were independent and
> responsible for
> themselves; it also doesn't imply that I (bleeding
> heart liberal that I
> tend to be) don't want to be responsible for my own
> self.
>
I think we may be both guilty of generalizing each
others views, certainly of the "other side's". I
think we're all diminished when we pigeonhole each
other.
For the record, I try and not be on a side, but come
up with my own views based on logic and (this sounds
weird even to me) that which looks to be the best bet
for the long term survival of humanity- America too if
that's feasible.
> > I think you may be on to something. But is it a
> > realistic goal in today's society?
>
> Was republican democracy realistic in a world
> dominated by despotic
> monarchs and their international colonial
> corporations?
>
Whoohoo! A little revolution from time to time..
Marvin, I thoroughly enjoy our mental fencing
sessions. I'd be hard pressed to recall any better.
dean forster
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
