is to all stop claiming to be so distressed by the *form* of the discourse, and pay a little more attention to raising the level of its *substance*.
"Is so", "is not" simply is not discourse. Regardless of how politely it's said.
On an issue of public policy that involves conflict between individual rights/freedoms and collective security interests (don't they all?), not knowing what one is talking about does not make one a worthwhile interlocutor.
I very much hesitate to single out anyone in this respect, so let me use the words without being understood to talk about the person, if I may.
"Inalienable rights". Yeah, fine. That looks to me like "Is so". Or "Is not", depending on the context.
Then there are the opinions. You know, those things everybody has. The things that so few people seem to feel any need to explain, provide foundation for, respond to the reasons for other people's of, and all that. Who really cares what anyone else's opinion is, especially when they've heard it several thousand times already? Flinging opinions back and forth doesn't really accomplish anything. Who needs to spend time on a
discussion board doing or reading that? If somebody doesn't want to
discuss his/her opinion, why would s/he be here?
And I am not by any means suggesting that this problem is unique to this forum of this site. Noooo.
Of course, I'm irrelevant! Not only do I not agree that the Democratic Party has "gotten a lot of bad press" over this issue (since I would not likely characterize the press as "bad" other than in terms of the source) -- it doesn't matter what I think. My agenda is not yours, in so many ways.
But if you want my advice, somebody oughta be standing up and demanding a little more respect from anybody who posts here. I think that readers, and anyone who expends the effort to acquire and present knowledge, explain policy positions, and listen to somebody else's, deserves the respect of having the people s/he is talking to do the same.
Go ahead and ask me whether I'm on drugs or whether I've never read a book -- just offer something to back up the surmise! Facts, argument, something that speaks to the issues.
And of course, something that speaks to what whomever one might be addressing actually said ... not what one might wish s/he had said, or would like others to think s/he said, or can come up with to avoid acknowledging what s/he did say. Is anything more boring and time-wasting? Is anything less respectful of both the interlocutor and the audience?
I do a fuck of a lot of work to learn about what I'm talking about. This particular subject is not one of my major concerns in life, I assure you. Like abortion, it is an intellectually attractive issue -- so much to know, so much to think about -- but as a Canadian, they aren't things I need to be overly concerned about. I'm self-employed and my work relates to these issues in a broad sense, so the time I spend at this is not entirely wasted; I frequently find that something I have "researched" for an internet discussion board post is a valuable bookmark for the next job that lands in my inbox. But apart from that, I just find it personally worthwhile because it's
interesting. Reading "is so, is not, sez me, sez you" just isn't.
I know that this second-amendment business of y'all's is of crucial importance to your deliberations. I just find it well and truly bizarre, and you'll notice I stay out of it. I find your collective overall approach to constitutionalism fairly bizarre too, all this "what did the founding fathers think, over 200 years ago" business, and I'm not persuaded that it's representative of left/liberal thought in the US, but again, it's yours, not mine, so there ya go. What I don't understand, of course, is the closing of minds against learning and considering alternative approaches. That just seems, to me, like such a normal way of examining universal sorts of issues that I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to do it.
On the other hand, of course, there is all the pseudo-information that circulates about things outside the US experience and tradition. That's quite the opposite of wanting to learn and think about alternatives; it's an "everything's all about me" attitude, a way of approaching the world that ensures it is seen from only one angle, one perspective, that distorts it and that does no one any good for anything. I do object to the exploitation and reframing of others' experience for one's own purposes.
Now, you've caught me after one of my famous all-nighters, when I get either scathingly hilarious (to me) or bumblingly incoherent. I think incoherent may be pulling ahead today; getting too old for this. And have probably lost any audience that doesn't have me on ignore at this point. (God, that "ignore" business is moronic.)
Anyway. Some common foundation of knowledge is simply essential if these sorts of things are to be discussed. So I'm once more going to recommend my favourite thumbnail sketch of US constitutional scrutiny:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.htmlExploring Constitutional Conflicts
(I just found it by chance, so if anyone knows of other better things, do tell)
and particularly
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htmLevels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause
and oh look,
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htmA Right to Bear Arms?
The Issue: Does the Second Amendment Give Individuals a Right to Bear Arms?
Very simplistic for some of the older hands here, I imagine. But the pages of the site do even come with discussion questions, along with primary source links and related links (pretty heavy on the "RKBA" side those last ones, I see). Perhaps a somewhat more
structured discussion here from time to time, one that has a clear issue agreed to by the participants, who agree to speak to that issue *and* to what others have to say about it, maybe in reference to something like that as a common source and guide rather than to the latest anecdote from the newswires, might be wise.
Okay, I'm done.
.