Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 May 1999 15:07:19 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs.missouri^Spamless^.edu
|
Viewed:
|
826 times
|
| |
|
|
Mr L F Braun wrote:
>
> But who are "the people?" Jefferson and Co. meant "white
> male property owners," but didn't say it because it didn't need
> to be said in a patriarchal society. Are we to revert to their
> definition of people as well? And equality in quantity or quality?
> Or both? It wasn't much of an issue until the late 19th century,
> granted.
"The people" - then and now - are whatever people we assume the
constatution governs. That has clearly changed. I don't have answers
to the fine points (e.g. are illegal aliens part of the people?) but I
think that we can comfortably agree that it includes voting US citizens.
If they had meant the states, they would have said so, this is
demonstrated by use of that term elsewhere.
> And...cannon on a ship are different than cannon in
> your barn. The weapon itself might be the same,
> but the justification is different.
That's true. And I don't have accounts from the time of individual
ownership, to contrast. By the time of the War Between the States, and
I assume it was common practice before, individuals funded combat units
for both sides and lead them sort of like free mercenaries. These
people had cannon and were private militia. What was the role and
commonality of this sort of activity during the colonial/revolutionary period?
> > > were kept in reserve at artillery parks or armories,
> > > just as they are today, and issued to the militia
> > > at the time of mobilization. Had the right to bear
> >
> > And those militia were controlled/directed by locals rather than a
> > central autonomous well organized institution with instantaneous
> > communications.
>
> True. But isn't the National Guard also atomized by
> state except in event of a national call-up? I consider
> that a "militia."
Wasn't it more of a county-sized operation? A state - even those little
NE states were a big area to command without electronic communication.
If someone in my community - someone that I could get an appointment to
see - had control of the big guns and was an equal decision maker with a
bunch of other county military reps, I would be more comfortable. But,
I would still suggest that I have the right to arms as guarenteed by the second.
> > Well, I think that's true. Sorry. (I just hope we don't stop here,
> > cause it's not good enough.)
>
> I'll agree that it's the best enumerated system
> we have, but it's not the only possible path.
> We can't exist if everyone is like us--Immanuel
> Wallerstein (among others) has shown that
> pretty effectively. For us, it's fine and I agree
> with you--but for the rest of the world? No.
But how can we know that they are proceding to something that will work
for them, and for us?
> > Published by the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. Kates is
> > a criminologist and Civil Rights Lawyer, and Kleck is a professor at the
> > School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University.
>
> Did PRIPP fund the research itself, or just publish
It doesn't say.
> the results? If the former, the story of its genesis
> is suspect--PRIPP is a very deregulation-friendly
> think tank. From Yearbook News:
But, everyone who might have funded it has some kind of bias. Does it
mean that all funded research is suspect? Or only that research
seemingly contradictory to the desires of the publishers is valid? (I'm
even in agreement that it's suspect, but where does that leave us?)
> Pacific Research Institute is a nonprofit
> organization which seeks to promote the
> principles of individual freedom and personal
> responsibility through the encouragement of
> policies that emphasize a free economy, private
> initiative and limited government. The Institute
> focuses on policy issues such as education,
> technology, welfare, environment, law economics
> and healthcare.
Thanks, that's cool.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) The Massachusetts militia were organized by towns. I think under an elected officer. The towns of course were (and still are) governed by open town meeting (total democracy).I don't recall how a leader was chosen when the militia of several (...) (25 years ago, 21-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| Hi again, (...) I try only to make stuff up when it's inconsequential. ;) My "field" isn't early US/18th C. Britain, it's later, so all I have is ancillary knowledge and methodological things. I'm in agreement with the "they had different worries" (...) (25 years ago, 21-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
