Media Bias - Surprise

J. Prescott jprescot at PRIMENET.COM
Tue Aug 26 20:17:29 MDT 1997


from MY vantage point, i always took questions of what i believed to be
that opportunity for me to actually understand & seal my beliefs.  though i
am sure that there are those much more qualified than myself to make this
explanation, i think that at the core of conservatism we accept that there
are GIVENS - ie: things that just ARE.  & we hold TO those things until we
are proven otherwise.  just because someone questions one of those givens
does not make that individual seem enlightened, nor ourselves less so
because we DON'T question it.

i happen to be a Christian, & as such i accept the existence of God.  many
don't & question His existence, but i do not esteem them as enlightened
just cuz they question whether or not God exists.  but you certainly cannot
say that this individual is from the same camp if he questions the premise
of the camp to start with; regardless of how much other common ground may
exist.

so on the point where you have questions concerning guns, it is very easy
for someone to associate you with the detractors of the issue, whether that
is really where you want to be or not.

the balance of my comments will follow beneath each section below - - -

jp

http://lonehart.com/danny/jp33750.htm
http://www.thepeoplesnetwork.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
                                G O   M I A M I    D O L P H I N S
 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _

----------
> From: Stephen A. Frye <safrye at concentric.net>
> To: RUSHTALK at athena.csdco.com
> Subject: Re: Media Bias - Surprise
> Date: Tuesday, August 26, 1997 10:22 AM
>
> >
> >to what do you credit your opinion?  the 2nd amendment in its raw form
only
> >specifies the actual granting of the right to bear arms.  what that
> >document does NOT do is give any underlying thought as to WHY our
> >forefathers found it so imperative as to make it the SECOND amendment.
> >
> >though not the end all for this topic, the Federalist Papers are
generally
> >among the First resources to be consulted when trying to discern our
> >founders' frame of reference.  i cannot direct you to the specific
essays,
> >as it has been years since reading them; however, it is my recollection
> >that it was clearly stated that among the arguments FOR the right to
bear
> >arms was protection against tyranny.  in looking at governments
THROUGHOUT
> >history, they concluded that government, by its very nature tended
toward
> >tyranny as long as it existed without the threat of "revolt" from those
it
> >governed.
> >
>
>
> Absolutely.  I have stated all along that I am not in favor of
gun-control
> - I guess that point was lost.
>
> You are totally right - the amendment does NOT give any underlying
thought
> as to why ...  That is subject to supposition.  We can also suppose that
> there was no underlying why - that simply we should be free to have arms
-
> or an armed militia.


supposition can be much reduced if some study is put to the issue.  there
is no lacking of writings from a multitude of sources that were entrenched
in the process of writing the constitution AND getting it ratified.


>
> What I object to is the senseless killing, the senseless injuring.  I am
> tired of hearing about children killed or injured because of
irresponsible
> ownership. I NEVER said that these people should not be allowed to own
guns
> - though I guess that point was lost also.


i object to irresponsible behavior at ALL levels of our society.  but when
it comes to this subject, the most common solution is to somehow limit gun
ownership.  there are MANY forms of this control, but unbridled, they would
ALL boil down to the same conclusion - eventually - & that is that NObody
should own them.

this is the only issue that i can think of where this sort of "logic" is
applied.  people are killed & injured through senseless & irresponsible
driving habits, too.  but i have never heard of anyone trying to limit the
ownership of automobiles.  to be even more absurd, everyday people are hurt
on their jobs, but has anyone tried to prohibit jobs?

the issue always comes back to responsibility at a personal level - be it
cars, jobs, whatever - including GUNS.

>
> Though not specifically with your post or reply, it angers me that as
soon
> as questions are asked regarding Conservative beliefs, the almost instant
> reaction is that the one asking the question must - by definition of the
> fact that he or she is asking - disagree 100%.
>
> That is so silly.  And so very entertaining.  It makes me wonder if
> conservatives desire blind acceptance, or if they would prefer to have
> people who think and question.
>
> Sure this is beyond the scope of media bias and gun control - but, to me,
> it speaks to the basis for our root beliefs.  I refuse to be led by the
> nose by any group, and I refuse to blindly accept anyone else's opinions
> without carefully examining as many positions on the issue that I can
find.
>  That examination - more often than not - tends to cause many knee-jerk
> reactions - much more so among the conservatives than among the liberals.
> That, in itself, makes me question the validity of the claims I choose to
> examine more closely.
>
> Stephen Frye



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list