Just a question to our resident Americans

[Belinda]

Skepdick wrote:

I have seen 'good' people do evil deeds.
I have seen 'evil' people do good deeds.

People are not evil however the deeds they do are usually asserted to be good or evil according to the moral criterion the asserter appplies to the case. No doubt infamous bad people were caused to do what they did however it's our duty to try to discover the causes of their crimes against humanity. If we neglect trying to discover the causes of human behaviour or of an individual's behaviour we neglect a main duty as free men.It's also our duty to try to know our own motivations for if we don;t do so we can't be free to choose.

The category of human being that you should be aware of is the category of wanting all the goods for himself and his tribe and to hell with everyone else .

Greed is but one of the many vices of men. The relentless pursuit Economic Equality in the form of socialism/communism is another.

You are correct in assuming my assertion to be political. Do you not see the difference between socialism and communism?

Ethics are not a matter of "it just depends". It's the duty of every free man to try to discover good and evil and choose accordingly.

'It just depends' should mean circumstances alter cases, which is true. Nevertheless it's our duty as free men to try to settle on permanent ethics such as slavery is always wrong. Or a man should know himself.

[gaffo]

This is your 2nd amendment yes?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."4

I know the Swiss are but how many gun owners in America are in well regulated militias?

nice note about the swiss, they are indeed. you seen to know history in this regard.

per your inquary and us americans. not per citizens explicitly in 2nd - but implied via prior common brit low.

nation quards are under the control of the governors of our states, so could be viewed as militia.

per law, for your education too, our supreme court under "heller" (a case first under Washington DC in the 80's?) in the SC (supreme court) - around 20? 15? yrs ago for the first time affirmed the view that the 2nd's intent/implication/interpretation included the right of individuals to posses guns (not just state millitia). a first in our courts.

....................


but as you know our 2nd is not need to posses guns, "we" (america) inherited your prior common brit law (and why aussies and kewis have guns legally) - our 2nd did not create a right to have guns, it only affirmed the prior right via Brit common law.

Thank you for that gaffo.

My understanding was that Washington disliked militias intensely

thanks for reply Foghorn, you have a mind and i welcome discussion with you.

per the above you are wrong. Washington did not dislike Militia per say, only that they were under his control, they serving their particualar colonies.

my militia are instrumental in defeating your King G 3rd in my rev war, so i do not dissparage them - not did Washington in concept, just in practice - they not seeing the bigger picture of a unified 13 colonies - rather than 13 colonies.

Washington did some bad things BTW (outside of killing deserters caught during the Rev War - he did equally bad things to Indians during the French indian war while serving the British).

so not lilly white man, but one "We" needed at the time to free ourselves from his/your King at the time of the Rev War.

as it appears that back then they were much like the ones we have nowadays, i.e. shit soldiers and mainly just out and about terrorising local civilians on the 'wrong side' of the politics,

yes and no.

per "real" militia "we" (americans) have our National Guard, and they are proffesionals under the control of State Governors.

per other self proclaimed such - like the nutts in montana 20 yrs ago, yes they were not proffesional nor under control of thier state's governor.

I can see no well-regulated militia amongst the mass of American gun-owners, just a bunch of yahoos who if the shit hits the fan, on whichever side of a political divide, will be out and about terrorising the 'traitors', although I take your point about the national guard.

agreed, but only see my national guard as a proffesional militia under the control of our 50 states, and so not the militia you speak of.

and of course since 1783, my States have slowly integrated into a federal system, and so in effect the national guard/s though are a militia, are in the real world (if not under the letter of the law of my land) are an exension of my federal gov (pres pressures any governor, and the latter's national guard will do the pres bidding).

and so i agree about your view of (US) miltia today - exculding their role 240 yrs ago, and my national guard.


thanks for reply Sir, welcome future discussions.

[gaffo]

i see i repeated myself from last week - lol.