 |
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
There is a small minority who dissent against laws against murder. Do they have the right to dissent? |
Ah, but there's a difference. Killing someone hurts someone. Electing not to give money to a bum hurts no one. It doesn't hurt the bum, because he's no worse off than he was before.
quote:
In regards to the realism of my aspirations, of course it is impossible for a perfect, sinless society to ever emerge. However, it is quite possible for a society that has a greater sense of living for the betterment of their neighbor. |
I agree, and I even agree that people should try to help others (though probably not at the expense of their own well being or that of their family). I don't agree that people should ever be forced to help others.
quote:
What is one of the two great commandments, aside from love God with all your heart? Love your neighbor as yourself. This is a universal truth, this is not the mere workings of mice or men. |
Loving one's neighbor is a personal quality, one that cannot and should not be enforced. Further, loving one's neighbor is NOT a universal truth. Gravity is a universal truth. Loving one's neighbor is NOT, because not everyone loves their neibhbor.
But in any case, laws upholding individual freedom are more important than laws upholding Christianity or any other religion or moral system.
quote:
What Ayn Rand considers most important is nothing compared to what God considers even remotely important. |
Who said anything about Ayn Rand? But in any case, what God considers important is an impossible expectation, in that he created us as imperfect beings. If he wanted us to uphold his commandments, he shouldn't have created sin or a sin nature.
Granted, he created a way out (seems like a lot of trouble, personally), but that in no way negates that fact that everyone must sin at least once in their life, according to the rules that God set up. With that in mind, passing laws against sins that hurt no one is absolutely ridiculous (such as gambling, prostitution, gun ownership, drugs, alcohol, etc.).
quote:
As I have stated in a previous discussion, God asks that we live for each other, rather than the individualism that Rand mandates. |
Then quite frankly, God shouldn't have created a sin nature. God can and does ask that we do our best, but he can't ask us to be perfect, because of how he created us.
quote:
There is no need for a theocratic regime, because what I propose offers true freedom. |
You have a funny definition of freedom. Wanna pull out a dictionary?
quote:
Once again David, I ask that you give up your philosophy, and I promise that it will be well worth it. |
No it won't. What you are essentially asking me to do is advocate a system of personal morals, and try to force that system on everyone else, even if they don't believe in God. I believe God exists, but that's irrelevant - if someone else doesn't believe that, who am I to force them to believe God exists or to live by his laws? God doesn't even advocate that, otherwise he would have done it. He did not, though, and that is clear in that we all have free will.
And don't make the "universal truth" argument. Saying that everyone has to live by gravity whether or not they believe in it has nothing to do with the topic. Gravity is self evident - it can be proven by the mere act of jumping. God is not self evident without relying on preconceptions, beliefs, or assumptions. You might argue that God is evident to all those who seek him (which still isn't quite logical, but we don't have to go there if you don't want to), but that by definition is not an example of self evidence.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
cia
|
|
Far away from here
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
Guns are simply a convenient reboot mechanism for an out-of-control government.
People were killing people quite aptly long before guns were even imagined.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
The question remains- did God create a 'sin' nature?
Read Genesis- man did not start out with a sinful nature although he was given freedom to choose whether or not to obey.
Eve sinned by tempting Adam, Adam sinned by accepting. Not only were they cast out but everyone else after them has inherited a sinful nature. |
OK, so God created the sin nature. Adam and Eve didn't create a sin nature, they didn't have the power to. Likewise, the serpent didn't create anything of the sort. Only God had the power to create a sin nature and ensure that we all inherited it.
Further, a real simple way out of the problem would be not to create sin 
quote:
Finally are there any sins that do not hurt someone? |
I don't think the most fundamentalist right-wing Christian alive today - say, Jerry Falwell - can claim that lusting after a hot girl on the street when you are unmarried, out of a relationship, and not acting on the impulse is in any way harmful, if you want to take it to an extreme (which you apparently do, judging from your statements below).
quote:
Alcohol, gambling, and drugs can all be taken to excess which most certainly hurts the people involved, and their families. |
First of all, the act of drinking a beer, betting on a horse race, or smoking marijuana don't harm anyone, even yourself. Drinking a whole bottle of Jack Daniels is harmful to yourself, as is smoking crack. But when I say "hurts no one", I mean "hurts no one other than possibly yourself" - you should be free to do whatever you want to yourself, because you're not hurting anyone else.
As to your statement that these acts hurt families, again, this is only true if taken to excess. Drinking a beer never hurt a family, nor did betting on horses, nor did smoking pot.
Alcoholism, drug abuse, and compulsive gambling might "hurt" families in the sense that it deprives them of a responsible father/mother figure, but the remaining family members always have the option to move on. Ultimately, though, none of these actions physically hurt anyone else, which is the point. If we start going down the road of criminalizing stuff that hurts people emotionally or "tears apart families", nothing will be legal anymore.
quote:
As for prostitution, not all prostitutes are 'voluntary' with many working to pay off drug debts or pimps. Are they not hurt by prostitution? |
Sure, but that's already illegal. People being forced to pick cotton in the fields certainly hurt them - blacks were hurt by the system of slavery. But all that means is that we got rid of slavery - we didn't criminalize cotton. Punish the crime, not the act - consensual sex doesn't hurt anyone.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zkribbler
If "people" meant "individuals," then the open phrase is meaningless. Congress could have simply said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." |
They were explaining why it was necessary for this right not to be infringed. Remember, the Framers were deeply suspicious of a standing army and yet recognized the need for an armed body to defend the republic. At that time, citizens weren't merely allowed to have guns, they were required in many places to own a gun and sufficient powder and shot. The Framers intedned that the citizenry be armed, so that in the event of an invasion or insurrection or indian attack, there would exist a force capable of resisting.
Since we now have a permanent military (which would have horrified the Framers), one can reasonably argue that the 2nd Amendment no longer has any value, expecially if you believe that what the Framers intended is the most important factor in interpreting the Constitution. Frankly, they're dead. It's not they country and it hasn't bee for some time. It's our country, and we can interpret the Constitution however we decide, just as we have always done. The fact that it is a flexible document is why it is the oldest working constitution in the world.
That said, I am in favor of individuals being able to keep and bear arms. I do, however, favor regulation, and the 14th Amendment allows for that with its "due process" clause. I don't think children or the insane or felons should be allowed to have guns. I'm not terribly keen on handguns, and assault weapons are right out. In this, I think the guiding principle should be public saftey, and everyone who owns a gun should be required to take classes on how to use it, maintain it, and keep it safe.
Shi Huangdi and monkspider, the Bolshevik revolution was not a violent one, although it was armed. In fact, it was relatively bloodless, except for the massacre of Bolsheviks in Moscow by the White Guards. In the following three years they would defend the revolution by force of arms, by most people would agree that self-defence is a right. If the revolution refuses to arm itself, it will be overturned. Elites never surrender power without a fight, and the simple fact that you have "won" doesn't mean they'll except it. That said, whereever power can be taken and held non-violently, it should.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 07-12-2002 at 23:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Amendment II
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 be infringed |
Zkribbler
Since the state as a whole can only lose its freedom to the government or an invader, and not an individual that means gun ownership exists to keep people free from state instituted tyranny. A single individual cannot threaten the security of the entire state with firearms, some horrible biological super weapon yes, but not not firearms. It seems quite clear that the second amendment exists to counteract a government that would oppress its people, and it also seems quite clear that having an armed populace capable of defending their nation would mean that there wouldn't be a need for a standing army.
Since the US now has a completely professional military that is the overall best in the world, the idea of having the people defend the nation from invaders is obsolete. Even if an armed majority of the population thought that the US was a tyranny, they no longer are an effective counterbalance against the government's military power. The originial purposes of that amendment don't really apply to our society anymore. I'm not completely convinced that this is a good development though.
I still think that guns have a useful place in today's society, and if they don't and this is obvious to most Americans, then why don't they petition their politicians to pass an amendment to ban or strictly limit guns? If most people truly do think guns are a menace, and they put their money where their mouth was, they could easily outspend the NRA and repeal the second amendment. Until this happens, the highest law in the land gives people the right to own guns, and that right exists until either the bill of rights is simply ignored (which would be a VERY bad thing) or people change the constitution. When the nation changes the constitution can change and adapt with it by the amendment system. That's the way it's intended to work, not the current way of simply reinterpreting the words to mean whatever the group in power sees fit. There had to be a number of good reasons why Patrick Henry and others demanded these rights, and it wasn't because they were gun nuts. I think those reasons centered on fear of an unrestrained government running amok, and those fears are still meaningful today.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:24
|
|
One of the biggest testimonies for Christianity in the former Soviet Union, was that unlike Communism, it helped alcoholics stop drinking. Drinking is not sinful unless taken to excess that it becomes a problem for other people to deal with as well as for yourself. Why else would I include that qualifier?
As for lusting after the hot girl on the street, I assume you are referring to the sermon on the mount, where Jesus says that while the old mosaic law forbids adultery, he says that if a man looks lustfully at at a woman, he has committed adultery in his heart.
This is how we are to deal with sin- not just the outward reality, (ie, whether we act on it or not,) but with the inward reality as well. The problem with lust is not when it is a passing glance, but when it persists, becomes an obsession, etc.
"u should be free to do whatever you want to yourself, because you're not hurting anyone else."
David Floyd
"You are not your own- you were bought at a price."
1Cor 6:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
Militia: 1. soldiers who are also civilians: an army of soldiers who are civilians but take military training and can serve full-time during emergencies.
The purpose of the right to bear arms is to form a Militia. What is a Militia? Article II tells us:
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;"
The Second Amendment's stated purpose, "security of a free State," has nothing to do with armed conflict between the United States and foreign powers. That is the primary province of the Army and Navy, and the Militia, but only when called up for that purpose.
"[S]ecurity of a free State," then reduces to the security of a state to maintain its freedom. It is not necessary to the security of the United States - our else that language would have been used.
As MTG said, the purpose of guaranteeing the right of the people to keep their own arms is to prevent the State or Federal government from keeping those ams in an armory. Disarming the people always seems to be the first steps in imposing despotism.
The next question becomes whether the bearers of arms must be part of the a "well regulated" Militia. The amendment is unclear on this point. However, one of the means for imposing despotism could be simply dismissing the militia and the confiscating arms.
Therefore, I think proper interpretation of the amendment reduces to the right of the people to keep and bear "military" type arms, this in order that they may form a state Militia to defend freedom.
I don't know whether the Second Amendment has been applied to State laws. But it seems it has, or else the 9th Cir. could have simply held that the state law was not unconsitutional on that basis.
So, if the Second Amendment applies to states, I think it would clearly unconstitutional to ban "assault" weapons, which clearly are military type weapons. The 9th Cir. must be wrong.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-12-2002 12:07
It would have been nice to see the U.S. finally leave the 19th Century behind. 
"The people" is more a collective term than an individual one, if anything. Certainly, the Constitution and the interpretation of it by SCOTUS and other courts has held there are collective rights and there are individual rights. The argument over the 2nd ammendment is a perfect example of how there is no set interpretation of it.
|