Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 18 Mar 2000 22:18:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
339 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > This point has been debated here before. It turns on the intent of the
> > > authors. I can't cite the particular Paper, but the Federalist papers
> > > speak to this point. It also turns on the meaning of "well regulated"
> > > (and of Militia) which many hold not to mean what we moderns think they
> > > do.
> >
> > I'll clarify my point if it was a little murky: Frank stated the purpose of the
> > 2nd amendment was for the populace to keep the government in check (or words to
> > that effect). That may have have been in part what the 2nd amendment is about,
> > but I disagree that is what it is solely about.
>
> I'll again go back to what was written in the federalist papers. I
> plowed through them a few months back, so it's a fairly recent memory...
> I can't deny that there may have been other motives than the final check
> but that was the biggie, by a big majority, in the thought process... it
> seemed to be the one spoken to the most. These guys had just come out of
> a revolution, after all. It wasn't about hunting or about fending off
> hostile natives, it was about keeping the government in check should it
> turn into a tyranny.
There's also that "hostile foreign Powers" thing too, considering that the early
United States simply didn't have the money to maintain a large standing army or navy,
and wouldn't until the 1850s. Until the 1830s, invasion from Canada was a very real
fear, even if it wasn't much of a possibility in hindsight. (Hmmm, wait a
second....maybe it is, I ate a Tim Horton's donut in New York State last month.) The
2d Amendment is worded vaguely, so it can mean either or both, even granted that the
"Red Dawn" scenario is pretty unlikely nowadays--and that a hostile power would now
possess weapons far more powerful than anything your average homeowner with a .30-06
is going to have.
But IIRC it was a serious consideration at the time, and the text was worded so as
not to polarize anyone either within the US or without.
best
Lindsay
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) Technological superiority would not necessarily guarantee victory in a "Red Dawn" type scenario - whether the aggressor were foreign or our own gov't. Afghanistan/Russia demonstrates that (Viet Nam also). If a people have the will to fight (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) I'll again go back to what was written in the federalist papers. I plowed through them a few months back, so it's a fairly recent memory... I can't deny that there may have been other motives than the final check but that was the biggie, by a (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
139 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
|
|
|
|
