Thumper:
I apologize if it sounded self-important (drivel os OK, I do that all the time), but I was responding to what I saw as a specific challenge:
If you know anything about evolution, you know that it is a theory in disarray these days
but, critique accepted if it seemed too heavy-handed. Still, as a liberal on this site, I have to put up with an absurd amount of broad-brushed ad hominem anti-liberalism. I felt it was time to make a point about conservatism, since it seems like no one else is going to step up to the plate.
ArmsAkimber:
Actually, I felt that I wasn't really in a position to make judgements about constitutional law. Now I have examined it and I do agree with the general RKBA position. But, I can't claim any particular knowlege of the case law outside of what I pick up here (and TFL) and random other places. To make a real statement about the intent of the 2nd amendment one would really need to be a historian. I am not, so I don't go out too far on rheorical limbs with that. There are many others who are far more knowledgable and should be making those arguments.
When I write letters to senators and US representatives, governers, and mayors (which I do fairly frequently), I make the types of arguments that I feel they will respond to. Since I have knowledge of statistics, I can make the statistical arguments. The constitutional arguments will have to be made in the courts, anyway.
But, lest you think otherwise, I strongly agree with the natural right to defend oneself.
As for natural design: fine, teach it, but not in science class. It belongs in theology class, since it has not stood up to scientific scrutiny.
Ed Brunner:
My point is that both sides often work from a position of ignorance. I wasn't so much defending liberals as attacking conservatives.