-Caveat Lector-
Robert Tatman wrote:
>
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> At the risk of being massively flamed, I am compelled by a
sense of what I can
> only call spiritual and emotional maturity to propose that
the time has come
> to repeal the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
>
> What is at issue is not some supposed innate right to keep
and bear arms. What
> is at issue is the culture of violence that puts firearms on a
pedestal and
> worships them. What is at issue is the culture of violence
that insists on
> "getting even" instead of resolving conflicts.
Your wish to end the "culture of violence" is a worthy goal. I, too,
would like to see it end, so we are in agreement here. I also do not
like guns or weapons of any kind. Holding a gun in my hands does not
feel good to me in any way. I am a violinist, composer, inventor, and
artist. I would rather create than destroy. However, I understand the
fear of those who do not want to see the citizens of this country
disarmed while the government remains massively so and shows signs of
turning into a police state. And, because I acknowledge the fact that
there are many who would see the confiscation of guns as a last straw
and would resist it with violence, I would have to oppose the ending of
this right for that reason, if for no other. So, I wonder if you really
desire to end the "culture of violence" and are not opposed to limiting
our present rights which are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, that you
might embrace the modification of another of these amendments. Would not
an amendment to the Constitution which modified the first amendment to
allow the government to ban the depiction of violence in all
entertainment forms be something which you would support? This would
certainly go a long way towards ending the "culture of violence" you
wrote about and should garner more support than your proposal to repeal
the 2nd amendment. It seems to me that it would be an action towards
your goal which would be more acceptable to the majority of
conservatives who often favor censorship. Perhaps it might actually have
more difficulty among liberals, but I am sure that the importance of
ending the "culture of violence" would be a stronger motivating force
than any fear liberals might have of weakening the protection of
individual rights. And, we know from history that the loss of the
ability to show violence in entertainment would not significantly
diminish its quality or impact. Shakespeare was able to entertain and
enlighten millions with little (if any) depiction of violence. So would
not such a modification of the First Amendment be something which all
can support (except, of course, libertarians with their almost religious
belief in "rights").
Howard Davis
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
