Subject:
|
Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 May 2005 17:54:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1048 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
| |
Put the power (nuclear or otherwise) in the hands of the people.
|
That too. I think the second admendment goes up to personal tanks in
applicability...
|
I know we’ve all discussed this before, and I confess that I don’t have a
clear concept of what’s appropriate for whom to possess, but I have I have
question about the history of this interpretation.
How did the founding fathers feel about private, individual ownership and use
of artillery pieces? Practically speaking, I think that these were the
pinnacle of land-portable weapons technology of the day; was ownership
permitted to anyone (well, to any white, land-owning male, I guess) who could
afford it?
|
I’d refer you to the Federalist Papers for something a bit more authoriative,
but my guess would be no, their cutoff seemed to be “man portable” rather than
“portable if you have a whole team of horses”. Before you ask, that DOES rule
out “personal tanks” or anything that has a motor to move it around, I’d say.
| |
On a philosophical note, if the FF could have foreseen the level of
man-portable destructive capability that would arise, might they have worded
the 2nd differently?
|
Who, absent a time machine, can say for sure?
| |
Which is a greater power, in real-world terms: the
ability to tax interstate commerce, or the ability to blow up a city?
|
The former, as it has no check.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- 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
|
|
|
|
