I wrote:
>Do you actually view it to be self-evident that we have a creator, and
>that he (sorry, "He") endowed us with rights? I not only don't think
>it is self-evident, but I don't even think it is at all likely. Is this
>the foundation for why you believe we should have an armed populace?
Forrest responded:
> No, I do not "believe" in a god(s). No, this is not the reason for an
> armed population. The reason is to keep goverment (and private
> hoodlums) in check, to keep the would-be rulers constantly in fear
> of the citizenry. This is the fundamental check and balance on
> "political power", which, as Mao Tse-tung notes, "grows out of
> the barrel of a gun" [1].
That's a better reason. One problem is that not only government and
hoodlums, but everyone else, lives constantly in fear of the citizenry.
I remember when I went into a jewelry store where the proprietor wore
a sidearm. It was pretty scary knowing he could pull out his gun and
shoot me dead at any time. I didn't go back.
> Taking a single point out of context is not a very effective means
> of making a cogent argument. It can distract a reader from the essential
> theory, and lead one down irrelevant lines of inquiry. The "founding
> fathers", many of whom were deists [2], with a few christians, were
> writing for their time, as is quite evident in the remainder of this particular
> document.
Okay, but you started off with this stuff about being created by God
who gave us rights. Was I supposed to get a lump in my throat reading
these revered documents? The US' declaration of independence is a load
of crap. It has no more relevance to me than the story of Robin Hood
and Good King John. BTW that story teaches us that we should be armed
so that we can rob from the rich and give to the poor. Just quoting
old documents is no argument.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:38 MDT