[Vision2020] discharging firearms

[Ted Moffett]

"But, this is getting into some pointless semantic distinctions of Platonic
proportions, isn't it?"

I rather thought your post not "pointless" at all...  Careful precise
semantic distinctions are necessary in the understanding and practice
of law, and in understanding the US Constitution.

The debate over firearms regulation and constitutional rights is in
part an ethical problem, a subject which many people pontificate upon
as though they are experts, while rarely having studied the subject in
depth.  I suspect Homo sapien sapiens is probably genetically
programmed with a need for ethical certainty, given the need to act
decisively for survival advantage, in an uncertain bewildering world;
this is part of the appeal of dogmatic religion, I suppose.  I find my
passions routinely inspire statements of ethical certainty, when my
intellect should know otherwise.  Thus I feel sympathy (but often
antipathy) sometimes for those who follow religious precepts to the
extent of ignoring evidence and logic, despite the harm of this form
of thinking.  Firearms regulation is a very emotional topic, and these
emotions often result in more ethical certainty about the subject from
those with differing views, then the facts warrant.

G. E. Moore's "Principia Ethica" offers an analysis of Ethics that
should reveal to the reader the extremely difficult problems with
constructing a theory of Ethics.  If you thought your post exhibited
"pointless semantic distinctions of Platonic
proportions," Moore's book, on the Modern Library's list of the best
100 non-fiction, and available online in total for free, might be
viewed as pointless to the nth degree, though I find the book
fascinating, even if I don't fully grasp Moore's concepts.

I was happy to discover Annie Dillard's "Pilgrim at Tinker Creek" also
on the Modern Library list... a book full of marvelous points!

http://fair-use.org/g-e-moore/principia-ethica

http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-nonfiction/
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 11/7/10, Robert Dickow <dickow at turbonet.com> wrote:
>
> "It just doesn't make sense if bearing arms doesn't include the use of such
> arms. "
>
> Yes, of course. The thread was about the term 'bear' specifically. What I
> was asserting is that the term 'bear' itself and alone does not mean, in
> this instance, to use. The use of the firearms for shooting bullets is
> implied by general context and not by that one term. Let's say that there is
> an amendment to the constitution that explicitly gives everyone the right to
> bear pencils. "The government shall not infringe on the people's right to
> bear pencils." We infer from that that we all have the right to write things
> down, because that is what pencils are for, primarily. But still, the word
> 'bear' itself does not suddenly take on the literal meaning of 'use', or
> even literally 'to write things down'. It only means, literally, that we can
> carry them. That we can use the pencil to write things down is an inference.
> It is also this kind of inference(?) that prevents us from concluding that
> the statement gives us the right to go around stabbing people in the eye
> with the pencils, which is also a potential 'use' of the pencil. Common
> sense, in other words.
>
> But, this is getting into some pointless semantic distinctions of Platonic
> proportions, isn't it?
>
> Bob Dickow, troublemaker
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
> On Behalf Of Garrett Clevenger
> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 12:03 AM
> To: Robert Dickow
> Cc: vision2020_moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] discharging firearms
>
> It just doesn't make sense if bearing arms doesn't include the use of such
> arms.
>
> What good is a milita that would be allowed to carry weapons but not be able
> to use them?
>
> To me at least bearing arms means wielding and using them.  Grizzly bears
> know what I'm talkin' 'bout.  Bearing can be an action which in the case of
> a firearm is the use of the firearm..
> <snip>
>
>