Subject:
|
Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Sep 2002 17:05:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1827 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > What's your basis for the "man portable" criterion? I agree with it, but
> > > I'd like to have a nice way to encapsulate it.
>
> > The point is to have weapons that can resist the
> > projection of force against you, not to project force against others (and in
> > that made up example, drag the US into a war, possibly)
>
> I like that definition.
I don't like the idea of folks just running around with nukes and contagions
unchecked. But I'm not willing to say that the 2nd only applies to
man-portable arms.
If we agree that the point is to enable The People to revolt, then it seems
reasonable to understand the 2nd to apply to any and all armaments that The
People during said revolt might find themselves facing. Certainly this means
everything right up to nukes -- artillery, armored vehicles, encryption
technology, combat aircraft, anti-aircraft, mines, etc.
I think the key is that the official military should not have a technological
edge over the people by fiat.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
220 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
|
|
|
|
