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 18:00:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1035 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
| |
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.
|
Interesting (and, I note, consistent with your previously stated views). I
wonder if they might have considered relative firepower/destructive potential if
they’d known what would eventually be man-portable. That’s wonder-if question,
as below:
| |
| |
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?
|
Sure. Fun to speculate, though (for me, at least).
| |
| |
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.
|
Maybe it’s a question of power in-the-aggregate vs.
power-in-raw/immediate-terms. Me, I’d rather pay an extra $.20 for a can of
soup than see a city laid waste in a blast, but I think, frankly, that this
would qualify as an anecdotal objection.
Thanks for the speedy input.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
