Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:12:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
930 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> >
> > > The recent events may also have taught us that there exist other
> > > objects beside guns which can be used as powerful weapons.
> >
> > So? Everyone has the right to own a jumbojet loaded with fuel, or surface to
> > air missles (depending on your point) too.
>
> Well, not according to the 2nd Amendment, The Constitution in general, or
> in any litigation thus far brought before the Supreme Court.
Um, I was kind of playing, but what do you mean? I think the 2nd is pretty
clear on the matter. The issue of how the Supreme Court has allowed the
curtailing of our constitutional rights is interesting, but I'm not sure that
I'm ready to define "right" in such a pragmatic sense. As soon as I admit that
we don't actually have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, then that
right is gone. I think that's how they work.
> specifically, the government's authority to regulate the ownership of arms
> by private citizens has never (that is, NEVER) been curtailed by the High
Court.
Agreed.
> That's not your argument, precisely; you're stating, I suspect, that
> people have a right to own whatever weapons they care to own, regardless of
> The Constitution.
Regardless of the court, actually. But we get into the funny nebulous
definition of rights that we've tried to hash out before. Is it my right
to do X only when a majority of my peers agree? Is it my right to do X because
it is written into our highest law? Or is it my right to do X because our
system of "law enforcement" regardless of the laws allows me to do so?
In the city in Missouri from which I moved, it was policy not to stop people
for the use of marijuana. My neighbors would sit in lawn chairs smoking pot as
cops drove by. But possession and use of this substance was against local,
state, and federal laws. Did my neighbors have a "right" to smoke pot?
My stance on weapons (the ones that I care to own) is that I'll own them
regardless of what the law says and my desire to own them is inversly
proportional to the laws that control my ownership. Partly that's because I
have a problem with authority and partly that's because as they tighten the
controls, we come closer to needing them. So the fact is, that I have always
had firearms (since I was a teen). Sometimes in opposition to the inferior
laws that we are most concerned with on a day to day basis, and sometimes not.
But my ownership was always, I believe, protected by the 2nd. Was it a
"right" that I was exercizing or an ability? Where is the line between the
two?
> I don't agree, but that's not the point, either. My
> point is that, within the United States, the US Government is well within
> its power to control the ownership of arms,
Power or right? I would be a fool to suggest that they can not. They do! I
don't think they should, in general, but you already know that.
> and residents of the US who are
> subject to US authority have to deal with that. If they want to own an
> ICBM, they can always move to another country where ICBM ownership is not
> infringed.
Or they can own one in opposition of the inferior law. Obviously an ICBM and
the infrastructure to keep it ready to use would be tough to hide. But the
theory is the same for handguns, right? As a teen, I had an illegal .32
revolver in my car for a couple years. I was "dealing with it."
> Of course, someone else might bring up the romantic but impossible notion
> of overthrow-by-force of the hegemonic US governmental machine, but that's
> another story entirely.
That won't happen anytime soon. I think it's more likely that strong digicash
will creep up on them and make the notion of government obsolete. At least, I
hope so. And I hope they don't kill too many folks in the attempt to keep
control.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) But according to the Constitution, it is the Court that is empowered to interpret the law. (...) I've had a small and far-too-late epiphany on this matter, or at least on how to articulate my feelings about it, so I think I might finally have (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Well, not according to the 2nd Amendment, The Constitution in general, or in any litigation thus far brought before the Supreme Court. More specifically, the government's authority to regulate the ownership of arms by private citizens has (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 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
|
|
|
|
