Subject:
|
Re: Million Mom March
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 13 May 2000 22:16:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
411 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > Why should that be limited to man-portable weapons. I disagree. Since the
> > ponit of the 2nd is clearly to keep the citizens armed to the point where • they
> > can reject the government, then all ordnance available to the government MUST
> > be available to the citizens. I know that when we get touchy-feely with out
> > emotional side, it seems like weapons of mass destruction should be
> > prohibited, but I don't think that's in the spirit of the 2nd and its logic.
>
> When the 2nd was written, cutting-edge weapons technology took about a
> minute to load a single shot.
What does this rebut?
I hear people make arguments based on the idea that the founders didn't know
what weapons would be like, but I never really get how that matters. The point
is that the people must have access to weapons equivalent to the military.
> Today, how long does anyone realistically think that
> anything other than a phenomenally large group of organized, trained, private
> civilians could stand against a no-holds-barred military force acting against
> it?
About thirty seconds...for prep time, target acquisition, presidential code
verification, and travel time. So what? Today, people don't own howitzers.
They should.
> Perhaps we should check in with Mr. Koresh to see how effective he feels
> such resistance to be.
He mostly didn't resist. His band was mostly unarmed. His compound was
undefended. And he was wildly outmatched. That's why the jack-booted
stormtroopers were able to murder him and his friends.
> Your assertion that everyone legally should have access to all weapons seems
> unworkable.
By unworkable, what exactly do you mean?
> Do you suggest that my neighbor and I should be able to own
> 100-megaton nuclear warheads, in case the mayor gets a little too pushy?
Regardless of the reasons you might want to own a nuclear weapon, I supose the
market should determine who gets them. If you misuse it, the courts will
assess a fine.
> I find myself in agreement with...the man-carryable limitation.
Why?
> Certainly we should work to enforce the existing laws before penning a dozen
> volumes of new ones, but given the ease with which two local (to Pittsburgh)
> lunatics were recently able to go on shooting rampages, I don't see that
> unlimited weapons access would really do anyone any good.
Whether or not it would do anyone any good, it is a constitutional right. And
real criminal laws (the ones with victims) are essentially not enforced with
any degree of vigor. That's why we have problems like this.
> Granted, these two
> individuals were sick and therefore not representative of the vast majority of
> gun owners who are sane, but it was bad enough that their legal access to
> weapons allowed them to shoot about a dozen people--how much worse would it
> have been if they'd been driving around in Constitutionally-guaranteed Abrams
> tanks?
Probably, most people who're that psycho can't get their ducks in a row well
enough to procure and operate a functional battle tank. Also, you seem to link
the ready access of firearms with their heinous crime. I would counter with
the claim that if more people were armed, they'd have only gotten a couple of
shots off before being taken out.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Million Mom March
|
| (...) When the 2nd was written, cutting-edge weapons technology took about a minute to load a single shot. Today, how long does anyone realistically think that anything other than a phenomenally large group of organized, trained, private civilians (...) (25 years ago, 13-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
