Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:47:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1066 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > 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 according to the Constitution, it is the Court that is empowered to
interpret the law.
> 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?
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 an
approximate answer.
Regardless of whatever "rights" we may have in an ideological sense, there
are certain "rights" guaranteed to be protected by the US Constitution and
certain "rights" not guaranteed to be protected by the US Constitution.
According to that document, the legislative branch is empowered to make laws
not in conflict with the document itself. To that end, the federal
legislature would be perfectly within its enumerated powers to legislate an
all-out ban on the private ownership of arms. Does that change the fact of
our nebulous "rights" to own such items? No. But it does state that,
within the United States (that is, the region that is, by charter, under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Government) the government has the power to
restrict that right. If a citizen wishes to oppose that restriction, the
citizen must accept the consequences of that opposition, be it
incarceration, a fine, censure, or what have you. If that citizen wishes to
exercise his "rights" in defiance of law (and we've all agreed that
right=/=law), then that citizen is welcome to leave the region governed by
that totalitarian regime known as the Federal Government.
I find this issue somewhat similar to complaints that the Catholic church
doesn't allow female or homosexual priests. If a woman wants to be a
priest, she's welcome to be a priest, but not under the Catholic church. If
she really wants to be Catholic, then she can't really want to be a priest,
since to do so would be to act in defiance of Catholic doctrine. That
doctrine may change at some point, but for now that's how it is. In much
the same way, citizens of the United States must respect the laws of the US
or face the consequences. If a citizen wants to own an ICBM, he's welcome
to do so, but he has to accept that, under the rules of the nation of which
he's a citizen, he is not allowed to do so. Does that curtail his "right"
to own it? Sure. Is that a problem? Only if one maintains the illusion
that a libertine society must allow all "rights" all the time, which the
United States NEVER has, nor has any other society. The very fact of living
as part of a society, or within the geographic boundaries of a society,
requires that one accept certain rules.
> 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?
Sure they did, but it was against the law. See above.
> 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.
You must recognize that this is a somewhat reactionary statement, but I
see your point. My point, however, remains that you are free to own
whatever you like, insofar as you have the nebulous "right" to do so.
However, within the United States, as spelled out by the Constitution, the
government is empowered to restrict those rights.
Your complaint, in various forms, has always existed. The time to protest
the rules that restrict your perceived "rights" was the time when the
Constitution was ratified, since at that time it spelled out exactly which
rights could be curtailed by the Federal government and which could not.
And by "could be curtailed" I mean "were judged to be an appropriate
trade-off for the greater benefits gained by overall ratification of the
Constitution."
I have often pointed out that it is useless to claim that one knows the
founding fathers' "intentions" re: the Constitution, and I stick by that
statement. I have also pointed out, as have others, that the founding
fathers thought it was appropriate to own human beings as property, and not
until 80 years later was a further amendment ratified to correct that
oversight. Does it not seem likely that if a private citizen's right to bear
arms were indeed to be guaranteed, an amendment specifically stating this
would have been ratified by now? Or, at least, that such an amendment might
at some point be ratified? The Second Amendment, once again, does not make
this guarantee.
> > 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.
The Federal Government is within its power, as enumerated by the
Constitution, to legislate a full ban on private ownership of arms. If you
object to the Federal Government's exercise of that power, then your beef is
with the Constitution, and not with the Fed.
> > 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.
That would guarantee the establishment of increasingly powerful and
decreasingly accountable corporations as totalitarian rulers of society, and
I can envision no more nightmarish proposition than that. I would sooner be
forced to lodge soldiers in my home than to submit to the rulership of
Disney or Microsoft of Nike or GE or Verizon or, perish the thought, Enron's
heirs apparent.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Dave, your post is too full of errors to take on as a whole so I picked just this one spot. I think it is also an erroneous statement. I could certainly mount arguments that would show that the second amendment is indeed a protection to keep (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 23-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
|
|
|
|
