[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[Timothy C. Klein]

* bof (bof at pcisys.net) wrote:
> Timothy C. Klein wrote:
> 
> >What is it?  An armament serves no purpose other than inflicting
> >damage/death on other living beings.  That puts guns into a different
> >class than most other human tools, to my mind.  
> >
> 
> Sorry, but guns are designed to fire bullets. What the bullet does is up 
 
This is total, utter nonsense.  If you can look me in the eye and
say that guns serve no other purpose than to fire bullets, I would be
saddened.  That is just such red-herring debate tactic.  A
gun is designed to fire bullets.  Why?  To hit a target.  Why hit a
target?  You are either practicing for the act of, or actually partaking in,
causing a significant bit of physical violence on the target.

Guns were not developed, and are not used, as some academic exercise in
moving matter at a high rate of speed.  They are designed to kill
animals, or kill people.  Period.  Even target practice is a symbolic
form of this.  If you take the position that guns are just built to
'fire bullets', then I disagree with you fundamentally, and I think the
position seems dishonest.

> to the intent of the user. Guns have no mind of their own, and do not, 
> in spite of what Sarah Brady will tell you, take over people's minds and 
> make them do bad things.


> >Also, keep in mind that the Constitution does *not* grant you the right
> >to have a *gun*, it grants you the right to keep and bear *arms*.
> >
> 
> Arms, in the intent of those who framed the Constitution, were guns and 
> it was the intent of those framers not to restrict their ownership  -- 
> this is clear throughout their writings. Firearms ownership was an 
> individual right, like the right of free speech, and had nothing to do 
> with being a member of a militia, which was considered the population of 
> able-bodied men in society who banded together to form a pool from which 
> an army might be drawn.

Neither you, nor I, are mind-readers: what the frmers 'meant' is a
sticky issue at best.  Thus, with the word arms, there is room for
interpretation.  Over time, we have developed just such a body of law,
that is an 'interpretation.'

> >One can not run to the Constitution to solve all arguments
> >
> That's strange: I thought that it was the fundamental pillar of our 
> government: a social contract between the governed and the government, 
> and was the basis for all our laws. In theory at any rate.

I think the Constitution is only an embodiement of something a hell of a
lot more important:  human rights, as it pertains to a governments
treatment of its people.  Those human right are the "fundamental
pillar," the Constitution is some old paper.  Even worse, it is written
by humans.  Thus, it will have mistakes.  All I am trying to say is lets
keep the ideals in mind above all else.

> >We need to always keep in mind the best interests of the country at large.
> >
> Seems to me that is the fundamental problem with our society today: "we 
> must have laws to make people good" (from the film Intolerance, 1916). 

I have never said, nor do I believe, that "we must have laws to make the
people good."  My belief is that, as needed, we create laws to help the
society prosper.  Whatever an individual does within that society is up
to him/her, within those boundaries that don't harm the society as a
whole.  

Tim
--
==============================================
== Timothy Klein || teece at silverklein.net   ==
== ---------------------------------------- ==
== "Hello, World" 17 Errors, 31 Warnings... ==
==============================================