The Herodians either Herod Antipas or Herod the Great before him also seem to be responsible for the construction of the harbors and breakwaters on the Sea of Galilee.
It is our job to see that it stays there. The political principle at stake is quite simple: This should perhaps be stated in the obverse: The history of arguments and struggles over this principle, throughout the world, is long and clear.
The question of gun rights is a political question, in the broad sense that it touches on the distribution of power in a polity. For me, and for most supporters of gun rights, however inartfully they may put it, this is the core issue.
Do you hold that the right to possess firearms is a fundamental political right? It is my perception, based on public evidence, as well as countless conversations on the subject, that the latter position is that of most self-identified American liberals.
However they may occasionally, tactically, craft Argument analysis marketing to children discourse to pretend, for an audience that does value the right of citizens to arm themselves, that they too value that right, most American liberals just do not.
They do not even understand why it should be considered a right at all, in the sense elaborated above. They would love to restrict it as much as possible, and they would just as soon be done with the American constitutional guarantee of that right, the Second Amendment, which they see as some kind of embarrassing anachronism.
I think we should have this discussion honestly. If the latter is your position, say it. If you want to eliminate the Second Amendment right, mount a forthright political campaign to do so. When your discourse reeks with intellectual and moral disdain for gun-rights and gun-rights advocates, when it never endorses, and indeed at best studiously avoids, the issue of gun ownership as a fundamental political right, it shows.
I would have done it. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. How persuasive is this performance by pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-hands Joe? Those who understand gun ownership as a fundamental political right correctly perceive, and are right to resist, the intended threat of its incremental elimination in gun-control laws that will have little to no practical effect, other than to demand more acts of compliance and submission to the armed authority of the state.
This is not about whether anybody likes or dislikes guns, and certainly nobody should fetishize them. It is unfortunate that, as with many debates in this country, the gun-rights debate is cast in the media as a clash between two extremely silly camps — those who fetishize guns positively, and those who fetishize them negatively.
For there to be a serious political debate, both of these attitudes really have to be recognized, and dropped, by those who inhabit them. I think there should be fewer guns. I definitely think that the cultural representation of armed violence as a quick, effective, and attractive solution for all kinds of personal and social problems, which is ubiquitous in America, is ridiculous and pernicious.
The answer to that is to do a lot of determined political and cultural work, not to pass a law and call in the armed police, the courts, and the penal system to enforce it on people who have done nothing wrong.
Guns are neither magic talismans against tyranny nor anathematic objects that cause crime and violence. Guns — certainly the personal firearms that are in question — carry a limited but real measure of inherent power, and therefore danger, that everyone should respect.
Indeed it is because they are powerful and dangerous that they are the nexus of an important political right. But guns are not agents of history. They are not, per se, going to free a polity from oppression or generate unrestrained social violence. Within an insurgent political movement, they can at certain moments be useful, even crucial, for the former outcome; and, within a context of social decay brought on by other factors, they can seriously exacerbate the latter.
Their overall positive or negative effect is only determined by the political and social context in which they are used, and the character of the agents who use them. American liberals can all too easily recognize and disparage the positive fetishism regarding guns, but can be blind to their own negative fetishism.
Such a consistent, rigorous, pacifism is an honorable position, and those who hold and live it deserve respect. They are, however, few and far between, and most American liberals are not among them. The vast majority of American liberals — like persons of all other groups — while they want to live peaceful lives, free of violence, for themselves and everyone else in the world, support the use of armed force in defense of themselves, their loved ones, and some political agenda or another.
While they actually hold a position that accepts legitimate uses of armed force, a lot of American liberals like to imagine that they are living in some kind of sympathetic identity with their edited, angelic versions of King and Gandhi, and they are shocked, shocked, and react with utter revulsion, at the discourse of people who proclaim upfront that they are not.
The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi. But this kind of presumption is annoying wherever it saturates liberal discourse — which is kind of everywhere.
Take, for example, this gem:: Zero Dark Thirty, you see, is a pacifist document. Or at least the document of a pacifist. Katherine Bigelow speaks for many, who actually think there is some kind of extra moral virtue in this way of living in the world.BibMe Free Bibliography & Citation Maker - MLA, APA, Chicago, Harvard.
This page contains the Argument topics for the Analytical Writing section of the GRE® General ph-vs.com you take the test, you will be .
The question of gun rights is a political question, in the broad sense that it touches on the distribution of power in a polity. Thus, although it incorporates all these perfectly legitimate “sub-political” activities, it is not fundamentally about hunting, or collecting, or target practice; it is about empowering the citizen relative to the state.
Mi said: “It is the SAME couple of people who reply to all of the NEW comments.” One of them is Lazy Man – the operator of the blog. It’s hard to imagine why you would find it surprising that he responds to posts on his blog.
Fundamental issues in the ethics of marketing Frameworks of analysis for marketing Possible frameworks. Value-oriented framework, analyzing ethical problems on the basis of the values which they infringe (e.g. honesty, autonomy, privacy, transparency).An example of such an approach is the AMA Statement of Ethics.; Stakeholder-oriented framework, analyzing ethical problems on the basis of .
There are also children in Eritrean prisons some of them arrested as recently as December and others who were arrested in March after attending the funeral procession of the late Haji Musa, who suffered in jail for four months before dying in the hands of the PFDJ.