Large Scale Central

Swiss Face Pump-Action Ban

General Discussion
#41
David Hill said:
I suppose my point is too many Americans believe we are a democracy, (and they believe the USA is Nation vs. a Federation of countries, but that's another topic) and more to the point made by some here, by definition a democracy IS majority rule (as I understand it), 50% plus 1 vote changes/enacts a law.

Where a republic has a foundation (The U.S. Constitution) that can NOT be changed by majority rule, except by amending the foundation itself. Big difference in my way of thinking.


Or you could just as easily call the Constitution an example of the thwarting of popular will, the dead hand of the past weighing the present down, etc. Why should I have to conduct myself by laws formulated by men in powdered wigs, in a pre-industrial age? Englnd does just fine without a Constitution.

I know this is not a line of thinking calculated to impress someone who believes in the literal truth of the Bible, in which laws laid down for goatherds in Sinai 2500 years ago are taken as a solid foundation for law in the present. I’m not actually arguing against the Constitution, just pointing out that it is most likely not the word of god but of a small group of smart guys in 1789. We are under no moral obligation to abide by it forever, and you could easily see it as a check on popular will, and in that sense “anti-democratic.”

There’s the famous example of the Stephen Girard will. Girard was one of the wealthiest men in early America and a key figure in the history of American finance. He founded a school, Girard College, to provide a boarding school for “poor white male orphans.” In the 1960s that will was amended by the US Supreme Court to include non-white males, and then again to include women. Many people were outraged by the violation of the “original intent” of the will, other argued that the dead don’t get to control the living, however much they might want to.

Please note–I’m not advocating discarding the constitution just pointing out that there are other ways to see it.

#42

"Why should I have to conduct myself by laws formulated by men in powdered wigs, in a pre-industrial age? "

Mike you won’t like my answer, but you don’t have to do that. You choose to do that by living in this Country.

We have a similar situation as what Mr. Girard did here in our Community. We have an historic library that some people would like to replace. It even has a farm that is an endowment for maintenance of the property. However, if the library is abandoned for another building, the farm reverts back to the family of the person that bestowed the endowment. The library board has the money to build a new library, but no budget to maintain it. They have gone to court twice trying to overturn the will of the benefactor and have been slapped up side the head each time.

#43

It was more of a rhetorical question Ric. i don’t like or dislike your answer.

I have no problem with changing someone’s will though, if it’s in the public interest or even for the family. I sort of figure life is for the living, and when I’m dead I have to let go of control. The difference with the Girard will case is that it was a semi-public institution that took federal money and so could not legally discriminate against non-whites in the way that Mr Girard apparently desired.

#44
mike omalley said:
David Hill said:
I suppose my point is too many Americans believe we are a democracy, (and they believe the USA is Nation vs. a Federation of countries, but that's another topic) and more to the point made by some here, by definition a democracy IS majority rule (as I understand it), 50% plus 1 vote changes/enacts a law.

Where a republic has a foundation (The U.S. Constitution) that can NOT be changed by majority rule, except by amending the foundation itself. Big difference in my way of thinking.


Or you could just as easily call the Constitution an example of the thwarting of popular will, the dead hand of the past weighing the present down, etc. Why should I have to conduct myself by laws formulated by men in powdered wigs, in a pre-industrial age? Englnd does just fine without a Constitution.

I know this is not a line of thinking calculated to impress someone who believes in the literal truth of the Bible, in which laws laid down for goatherds in Sinai 2500 years ago are taken as a solid foundation for law in the present. I’m not actually arguing against the Constitution, just pointing out that it is most likely not the word of god but of a small group of smart guys in 1789. We are under no moral obligation to abide by it forever, and you could easily see it as a check on popular will, and in that sense “anti-democratic.”

There’s the famous example of the Stephen Girard will. Girard was one of the wealthiest men in early America and a key figure in the history of American finance. He founded a school, Girard College, to provide a boarding school for “poor white male orphans.” In the 1960s that will was amended by the US Supreme Court to include non-white males, and then again to include women. Many people were outraged by the violation of the “original intent” of the will, other argued that the dead don’t get to control the living, however much they might want to.

Please note–I’m not advocating discarding the constitution just pointing out that there are other ways to see it.


Yours is an example of the “living document” model, which I would argue is flawed. Imagine how many changes we would be subjected to, the whims of the majority. You may consider yourself a progressive/liberal and wish to have a more “democratic” society, but what happens if the conservatives re-gain power and want to institute a more stringent set of rules than you would like. Bad way to run a government. As it is now, if you believe the “foundation”, the US Constitution is flawed in some way, the FFs were a bunch of doting fools in some respect, you have the ability to amend the base law.

Just wondering if you teach your students this, that the Constitution is/should be a “living document”.

The beauty of our country is, if one does not care for our form of government he is not restricted from moving to a nation that has a more progressive society. (Not suggesting you “love it, or leave it”)

#45

If I may add this mike. Here is what I believe would be a great instructional tool for your students. Maybe it is more geared towards younger students.

http://www.lexrex.com/catalog/catechism/catech.htm

#46

Same as it is in Noocassel old mate.

dump v. To drop a log; release the poop payload, often accompanied with a pump (fart) esp of Tyneside…

Not much of that going on in Zurich it seems

#47

Double post

#48
David Hill said:
Tim Brien said:
David, simple fact is, when you live in a society that respects its citizens, then there is no need to carry concealed weapons. As you have already commented, our country has an extremely low murder rate (1.6 provided by you), one-quarter the rate of your state (6.1) of 12.5 million population. We have around 2.5 times your population, with numerous immigrant ethnic cultures, many of whom come from extremely violent regions. They see our country as a safe haven.
Au contraire, a society that respects it's citizens dose not attempt to control it's citizens ability to defend themselves. What if I aim, say a crossbow at your chest with a 1.6/100,000 chance I'll release the dart? Would you want to take the same chance, but now you are standing behind a 12" thick concrete barrier for defense. (Another of my absurd analogies.)
David, a crossbow is also an illegal weapon in our country. You have a morbid fixation with killing, death and weapons. Were you bullied as a little boy, or ridiculed in the showers after playing sport? I hope that you are not a US Postal Service worker, or we may read of your exploits one day.
#49

There’s no need to automatically assume that the mere expression of an idea is also advocacy of the idea. Right now I have my students writing a defense of slavery from the point of view of a set of 19th century sources.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/omalley/120/slavery/index.html

Does that mean I endorse slavery? Or that they do? Or that they do? No. It means that it’s possible to understand ideas you don’t necessarily agree with. And that to argue effectively FOR a set of ideas, you have to fully understand the arguments against

#50
mike omalley said:
There's no need to automatically assume that the mere expression of an idea is also advocacy of the idea. Right now I have my students writing a defense of slavery from the point of view of a set of 19th century sources.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/omalley/120/slavery/index.html

Does that mean I endorse slavery? Or that they do? Or that they do? No. It means that it’s possible to understand ideas you don’t necessarily agree with. And that to argue effectively FOR a set of ideas, you have to fully understand the arguments against


Interesting assignment, definitely makes one think. Question everything?

We homeschooled our four, and that was the one thing I tried to “learn” them was to think for themselves and not simply believe what they see on the news, etc. (Successfully I hope)

We played a game, beginning when they were young (still an inside joke), when a commercial on TV said “Bigger and Better”, I’d ask, “Better than what?”. And, we’d question each other when one used a “universal” word, All, Every, Never. Simple things to teach thinking, versus repeating the din from the talking heads or biased educators.

I understand yours to be a excellent university. My daughter looked into going there but settled on Hollins for a year, got bored now back home from where she had transferred.

#51
mike omalley said:
There's no need to automatically assume that the mere expression of an idea is also advocacy of the idea.
No Mike, But they always do assume. Happens to me here all the time. Even you have been guilty in this respect. Ralph