CuriousLord
Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:
ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
Oh, true. Four-letter words tend to have singular intepreation and well-established boundaries which everyone can agree on. "Love", for example. "Arms", after all, only have twelve noun entries in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Of course in the context of the Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment, there is only one clear meaning.
This is what I meant about admitting ones illiteracy.
quote:
The foremost of these definitions for the context is: "a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense". This definition does not delimit "arms" to even being a weapon- it can be anything. Including purgury before the Supreme Court.
Therefore, I propose you define "arms", as you perceive it to be, should you wish to cite the founding fathers using such a word.
What does "Armas" mean in Latin?
Then just stop saying it's obvious and answer the question, silly. :P Still, legal scholars continue to argue about this point. Give us your take on it so we know what prospective you're trying to argue from.
How do you intepret "arms" mean in context?
(And, seriously, if you're having a hard time seeing the different ways of seeing it, I'll be glad to point some out for you. There's more than one.. but, if you think there's only one, I'm rather curious as to which one you saw before any others.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:
Private property rights are the establishment of ideals concerning an individual's right to own property. Should an individual's right to own property interfere with another individual's right to, such as, one owns a nuclear weapon which destroys a city, which happens to destroy the property (and lives) of millions, then are you not putting one's right before others'?
Ah, you are making the error of confusing OWNERSHIP with USE, and of course the CONTEXT OF USE.
Try to keep them straight.
Not really. I'm assuming that, in many circumstances, acquisition implies intent to use. Which implies ownership with use.
Unless, of course, you'd like to argue there aren't people out there who would just love to nuke New York City. Still, if you do, I'd like to bring up 9/11.
Try to keep up. ;)
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:
Further, "Private Property Rights" underpin all other freedoms? I would argue that the "right to life" is far more fundamental than the "right to ownership".
Your BODY is your most valuable POSSESSION... You are legally "Free" specifically because YOU OWN YOUR SELF.
You think we're legally allowed to live because we own our bodies? That the right to live is based off the right to own things?
What of Native American culture? Not exactly a huge empathesis on ownership there. I'm pretty sure, though, that they were big on the right to live. Same thing in a Communist society. This is to say, it seems to be the course that right to life is more universal than right to own, and it seems to follow that this implies life is more fundamental than possession.
Unless, of course, we should begin charging people with property damage en lue of murder charges? Kidnappers with "Grand Larcency: Child"?
Further, if right to life is based only off ownership, would you contend, in the BDSM context, that owning another, in all cases, means that a Master might murder his slave in a society in which slavery was legal, for instance, the classical American South? If not, then why was it a crime? Why do Bible passages on slavery attest to such being a crime?
If, in some afterlife, people become incorpal, would ending another's existence then be okay, or less of a crime, than murder now, as it does not harm a body?
I see numerous holes in your belief that ownship of self is greater than right to life. These are just a few contradictions in life and problems in the theory you have.
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:
People are still dying in hospitals.
That's just immature and stupid. DUH! No shit. What does that have to do with the CHOICE to needlessly waste lives by the continuing attempts to get the Kurds, Shia, Sunni, Persians and Other to sit around the campfire, pass the bong, and sing Kumbaya???
Ah, I see. So it's stupid and immature to make an obvious analogy, now is it?
It's funny how you call it "wasting life" when it kills someone, but call it "sit around the campfire, pass the bong, and sing Kumbaya" when it's about not killing someone.
It would be silly to sacarfice lives to get people to sit at a fire, smoke a drug that's illegal anyhow, and sing a lame song. On the other hand, losing some lives in the process of trying to get people not to killl eachother is much another matter.
I ask you not confuse these again.
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:
Yes, but you're failed to make a connection between recess of convention and failure to work.
Until they stand up, Bush will hold our troops hostage, and won't let them stand down.
Because Bush's goal is to make troops stay in Iraq. Not like he's trying to achomplish anything or has any other motivation.
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
They have no other task then to get their shit together, and if they don't their government needs to be replaced.
And why do they all need to be in one, huge, large meeting all the time to do this? Is it not conductive to work with the people? Is avoiding being in a good bombing target, thus not allowing themselves, the government of Iraq, to be destroyed, not conductive to the establishment of order in Iraq?
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
We did it before, no reason we can't do it again.
Probably could replace the government again. Probably piss off even more people and build more sympathy for terrorists, too. Not that replacing them is even likely to help.
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:
Have you considered the possiblity that governing officials may be needed outside of the official meeting room to deal with the more practical ends of a nation in the state of civil war? That they may be attempting to regulate things more directly at the moment, and meeting more in private as to not, themselves, be blown up so that they might continue the establishment of a lawful society?
So they can't do the job, you're saying. Because they SHOULD HAVE CONTROL ALREADY. Every day's continued delay is just, like for a junkie or alkie, enabling their addiction.
You think Iraqi leaders, most of whom have no experience on that scale of power, should be able to bring together a nation of warring cultures in a few short years? That their inability to do so is somehow an additction that, by accepting, we're enabling? That someone else could make everyone happy pretty quickly?
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:
As far as I'm aware, both the UN and the Iraqi Government are both trying to help out in Iraq. To my knowledge, despite their attempts, both, together, still insurficient to bring an end to the bloodshed. Even with the US's help, from my understanding of events, people are still dying in Iraq.
I don't see "Occupy Iraq " delegated in the Constitution, do you?
So we should base all of our actions off the Constitution? Just ignore things that aren't in it? Because I'm pretty sure the Constitution didn't say anything about not having hardcore sex on city side walks, either.
Actually, I'm pretty sure child porn's constitutional. Unless, did you see something against it in the Constitution?
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
So WHY did the US invade without UN sanction or assistance?
Because it wanted to invade and the UN didn't. How does this tie in with the idea we should withdraw troops?
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebarglequote:
How are the lives of humans in another country, such as Iraq, of no concern to others living in another country, such as the United States?
OH, OTHER PEOPLE, sure. Do whatever you want. It's not THE GOVERNMENTS RESPONSIBILITY.
Nor is it the government's responsibility not to.
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Do you want it to be? Amend the Constitution.
The Constitution didn't say you could type on a computer, farglebargle. No, I'm rather sure it didn't mention anything about that. You need to stop, now, until you get it amended, if you want to do so.
Unless, of course, perhaps people can do things that aren't in an ancient piece of paper that happens to not include everything possible?
By the way, I didn't see us helping out the Allies in World War II in the Constitution. Could you cite the admendment for me?
|
RE: So THIS is progress - 
Profile
Yep, I sure did! 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread