Subject:
|
Re: Million Mom March
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 May 2000 19:01:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
497 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Yes, that's basically what I meant (though there is an issue of what sort of
> background check is reasonable, the 2nd amendment doesn't help too much here,
I think that a strict reading of the 2nd goes against background checks
entirely. It doesn't say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed, unless they don't think the same way that you do."
> though the "a well regulated militia" part does suggest that there is an
> expectation of training [which is the largest part of what I believe that
> phrase is getting at - that not only do the people need the right to bear
> arms, but they need to be trained in their use]).
I think the first half of the 2nd is largly misused. First, it's not part of
the law since it doesn't include directive. It's sort of a side note
justification that might let us into their thoughts, but still isn't really
part of the law. And I think that they meant that since we need lots of
trained and armed citizens, everyone should have complete access to guns. Not,
everyone should have access to guns, if and only if, they will train in a
state-approved manner.
> Ultimately it would be nice for guns to not need to be traceable, but one of
> the largest source of guns to criminals is poorly secured guns. I'd like to
> see some way to weed out the folks who take no thought at all to the security
> of their guns. Ownership of a gun is certainly a right, but it also carries
> responsibility. Perhaps there are other ways to insure this responsibility
> though.
I agree that it carries enormous responsibility, but not state-enforced
responsibility. If the state can regulate how it is safe to keep your arms at
all, then they have the power to regulate them to an absurd degree. "Oh sure,
Mr. Filz, you can buy a Colt .45, but to keep it safely, it has to be at the
center of a cubic yard of concrete."
> Can courts be totally privatised? How do you make the courts work at all if
> they are privitized? How would their judgements be enforced? This is an
> interesting side topic.
Yes. Each person subscribes (or not) to a particular justice provider. The
various competing providers require different things from their clients and
provide different services. They also make arrangements with one another as to
how to work out differences. You can make up any scenario, test ahead of time
how the different providers would handle them, and choose the one you like.
What constitutes a crime would vary from org to org, but there would certainly
be some common threads. Those common threads are probably the real laws
anyway.
> ...but I can't chose which court go to (either because someone
> else is forcing me to be there or because I have to use a particular court for
> jurisdictional reasons - and this issue is still applicable with privitized
> courts).
True. But you may not have a choice which prison to go to either, and they
might have an electric chair and armed guards. Anyway, I don't feel strongly
that courts should allow guns, it does seem [with only a few exceptions] like
something of a bad mix.
> My point was not so much what happens when Billy fires the missile, but how
> are other countries going to react when they realize they can't make a treaty
> with us on such issues because the government ultimately doesn't matter
Would that be any different than dealing witha neighbor that you know break the
terms of the treaty as soon as it suits them? That describes most or all of
the countries anyway.
> (though I guess in an almost perfect Libertopia, people would enter into
> voluntary "governments" for just this purpose, to have negotiating strength
> for such issues - and in a perfect Libertopia you don't have to worry at all
> because the whole world is a Libertopia,
I think that in some ways, the whole world is a perfect Libertopia. It's just
that everyone sold their heirs into what they thought was good. And in the way
that you mean, we'll never have the whole world involved.
> but I
> bet a lot of international could justify a private army of some sort (and I
> think some actually do to some extent, I know I've read various things which
> suggest that, but can't speak to the veracity of such, but it sure seems to
> make sense to me that if you are operating in certain parts of the world that
> you need to see to your own defence, beyond the point of having a few rent-a-
> cops).
My understanding (both in that it seems reasonable, and that I think it
happens) agrees with yours.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Million Mom March
|
| (...) I guess that could be part of it, but my main thought was that the organization issuing the license would need to be sufficiently recognized as having good requirements, but maybe that's unworkable without something very specific. Of course (...) (25 years ago, 14-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
|
|
|
|
