Well the fact that you did compare the two is exactly my point. A collection of laws made by soldiers and politicians, is being compared to the "inspired word of God".

But I take your point.

The only difference is, that if you are following the Bible, you are believing it to be Gods word for your life. You have the freedom in this country to reject it and ignore it if you don't believe that to be the case.

The constitution applies to every human who sets foot in the country regardless of whether they agree with it or not.

Also, unlike the culturally/historically specific nature of the constitution, the Bible deals with age old inherant problems that occur yesterday, today and tomorrow, inside each individual. Human nature. The self destructive elements of the human spirit. It seeks to solve those elemental and primal problems with the ultimate solution.

Let the God of love inside you. ;) :D

[ 10-22-2002, 03:40 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

In case you've missed it, I'm an Australian who moved to the USA a year ago. There are differences yes, but there are more similarities.

I'm not suggesting you shouldn't voice it either. Feel free. Express away.

Thank you, and the back at ya. Well goodnight, maybe we will gab later.

Well, poor ole' Yorick is looking a little outnumbered here. The gun argument has kind of been done to death on this board a few times, so I'm going to look at a different aspect of it:

It occurred to me as I was reading the thread that a lot of people talked about "Freedom" in a lot of different ways. Well, Freedom is a notoriously difficult concept to pin down. Mostly by Freedom people mean the abscence of coercion preventing you from doing something. It would be absurd to say that not being able to jump 40 foot in the air was an infringement of freedom, so freedom is not just being able to do whatever you want. It has to be the abscence of actual coercion from a particular course of action. Well, this means that we aren't free very often in society...

When you walk down the street you aren't free from coercion if you decide to grab the nearest person and beat them to death. You will be legally stopped from doing so and punished. So you do not have Freedom. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the concept of Freedom doesn't make any sense. What I am saying is this:

Is Freedom a universally good thing?

And the answer, with reference to the above example and many others is, of course, no. Freedom can often be a very bad thing for society - the freedom to murder, steal, harm, etc.

Freedom is used in todays society, particularly in Western Liberal democracies, as a universally "good" term. It is never analysed. Why is it exactly that we want Freedom? What is it about the concept that makes it a universal goal in so many peoples eyes? And why, if we want Freedom so much, does pretty much every state in existance legally withhold freedoms for the good of society? I'll tell you why - in order to preserve some freedoms others are ignored. For example: the freedom to live without fear of murder is prioritised over the freedom to murder. The freedom to not be run over is prioritised over the freedom to drive dangerously. Every society in the world prioritises different types of freedom. No society can ever be "free", but most claim to be so. Very odd.

Which brings me back to guns. If people want to justify the "right" to bear arms by saying that they must be free then they are essentially prioritising different types of freedom. They are prioritising the freedom to carry weapons over the freedom to live without fear of gun-related death. I'm not saying that for certain, with no possibility of argument, that this is a bad thing. I'm saying that I don't agree with your prioritisation personally, and neither do many others.

The figures tell me that guns do more good than harm. According to thoes figures people are more likely to kill themself with a gun than they are anyone else. A lot of people in this debate have said that people with guns can easily go out and kill other people with them , but according to this statistic 62% of murders in that year WERE NOT caused by guns!! Maybe we should outlaw the items used in the majority of the murders and not in the minority of murders. THe suicide deaths are just people expressing their complete control of their life and when it should end. If they didnt have guns they would have found another way because you can not force someone to live when they dont want to.

Several thoughts 'en vrac' ...

If it is for your personal defense that you think you need a range weapon, why not shoot tranquilizer darts instead of regular bullets ? Thus you would be perfectly protected without harming anyone. Or is it that you make a confusion between justice and revenge ?

Freedom, you say ... freedom to what ? There is a saying that goes "Freedom stops where others' freedom starts", or something like that, I'm translating it from French. How do you plan to ensure the freedom of children not to be killed by guns owned by a member of their family or a neighbour ? Seems to me it is one fundamental of living in society, one major difference between jungle and civilization, that individual freedom be restricted in exchange for the benefits of living together. :pondering:

Those of you who are Christians and advocate gun bearing, how do you reconcile your conviction with what your God told you through Jesus, that a life is sacred, that no man is fit to judge, and that retaliation is never never the good answer ? :confused:

Also, I'm sorry to tell you, but you are not protected against a lunie owning nuclear bombs. You should really allow people to own nuclear bombs too. In the sake of safety, of course. In order to get real. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hunter of Jahanna, how can you say that the fact that American children are 12 times more likely to die from a firearm injury than children in other industrialized countries tells you that guns do more good than harm ??? :eek:

Oh, and about quoting George Washington. He supposedly said "The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related.". Get real : buy a prairie wagon ! :D

Um... I've posted on this before. The extrapolation ad nauseum of what your "freedom" means has to end somewhere. "Freedom to not have your feelings hurt" is certainly a place where your freedom has ended, as that would give you too much power to limit the freedom of OTHERS (e.g. by defining your sensitivities to be extreme). The notion of "freedom" revolves around physical, tangible (perhaps even extending into economic) chains people put on each other. Your guaranteed freedom extends to protect you (ideally) from having another person hit you. But, it doesn't extend so far as to prohibit them from telling you what they think of you, generally. When it comes to your emotions, any harm inflicted is based on a reasonable person standard. "Reasonable people" living in the US are not so scared of guns that the possession of guns rises to any legally-prohibited offensive level.

I know someone can interpret this in a silly fashion, and point "well, what if you're old and sick and they yell at you and cause a heart attack blah blah blah flur snur flur snur." But, being reasonable, I'm sure you get my point. ;)

This is an untennable statement. First, it contains too many definitive terms to be true on a real-world level and is an immediately suspect statement, even if you replace the word "guns" with almost any other word, such as "Cheese," or "Barbie Dolls," or "Apples." Obviously, the number of accidental deaths would decrease. I'm not chiming in with the anti-gun lobby, I'm just pointing out that you hurt your cause by arguing that which is not true and which is not needed to win your case. The simple truth is that there *is* a price paid for the freedom to bear arms, just as with all freedoms. We Americans feel that the freedom is worth the cost. Those of us who have experienced one of the child gun-deaths personally may feel differently, but that is a small minority comparatively. Those who are simply philosophically against guns, likewise, are a minority (though not so small).

Quote:

Guns simply make the expression of violence easier, but they don't create violence.</font>

This statement proves itself untrue, and is a perfect counterpoint to your above statement. :D

[quote]Originally posted by John D Harris:

Quote:

As for the words of the Constitution I'm a super strict constructionalist. ie: the 1st amendment "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion". Not seperation of Church and State. That has come about by Supreme Court decesions, totaly ignoring the unquieness of the 1st amendment. Unlike the other amendments that make up the bill of rights, the 1st amend. is the only one that specificaly mentions a branch of the government. All of the rest of the amend. make a statement about what is a right of the people without any qualifers about a specific branch of the government. :D

What about laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays. Even the statement referenced above has been the subject of hundreds of thousands of pages of judicial interpretation. Even the world's most *strict* constructionalist, Justice Scalia, has succumbed to interpretation on this very Amendment, albeit the "free exercise" clause of the Amendment. And quite creative it was. Changed a hundred years of "free exercise" jurisprudence. See Smith v. Employment Division. I'm just pointing out that even a constructionalist must *interpret.*

[edit] While I'm at it, I may as well throw a monkey wrench in our 1st Amendment discussion. As you state congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion. But, juxtapose that with another statement from the Same AMendment: Congress shall may no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But don't try to let your Christian Scientist belief get you off the hook for failure to take your kid to the doctor. DOn't think your satanic beliefs allow you to kill people in sacrifice. Santaria practicers can still get prosecuted under humane treatment laws for being cruel to protected animals (like dogs, not like chickens). And, as in Smith v. Employment Division, American Indians cannot get employment benefits when they were fired from eating peyote at work, no matter their religious beliefs. In short, the constitutional test for "free exercise" is based, first and foremost, on whether or not you are asserting the practice of an "established religion"

That sound suspiciously like a law respecting established religions, doesn't it? I thought that was prohibited? Wow, this stuff is way more complicated than the constructionalist can handle.

[ 10-22-2002, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]