Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 May 1999 05:36:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
990 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi!
Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> Richard Dee wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 13 May 1999 14:53:43 GMT, Christopher L. Weeks uttered the following
> > profundities...
> > > Richard Dee wrote:
> > > >
> > > > (When considering flameage in your replies, remember I am
> > > > actually half-American, by way of my father).
> > >
> > > How would that change anything?
> >
> > It wouldn't generally, but might temper the reaction of "stupid
> > bloody foreigner!" That could instead be "half-stupid, half-
> > foreigner!"
>
> You know, I don't get that. I've seen lots of newsgroups explode into
> US v. Canada or US v. UK debates, and its always so silly. Ultimately,
> you get a tiny little say in what goes on in your government and I get a
> tiny little say in mine, but we can still discuss philosophy of issues
> without being childish. Or, at least, we should be able to.
<culturerant>
I'm from Detroit. Half of my family came from
Ontario in the early decades of this century; the
other half is from Ohio. I've got Canadian, English,
Welsh, Norman, Saxon, Oneida, and Lord knows
what other identity. What's more, the big difference
between people living in the US Midwest versus
the Canadian Midwest is what government they
live under, and what taxes they pay where. I'd
argue that a resident of Kitchener, ON and I have
more in common than I do with a resident of Los
Angeles.
So what does that mean? It means that the English-
speaking world is a heck of a lot more unitary than
any of us are willing to admit--this is an artefact of
big British debates over imperial unity dating from
the 1890s, with attendant fears that the British Empire
would no longer be "British" if they were outnumbered.
Nationalism is a sacred cow for English-speaking
polities precisely because it's uncomfortable not to
have distance--almost threatening.
The fact is that culturally the English-speaking world
is a single bloc, if a contentious one. We think much
the same, though. If the United States appears to have
unusual pull in matters, it's only because we've got
everyone else (among the "real"--read European-
descended--populations, anyhow) in the English-only
world so grossly outnumbered. Without one another,
the cultures we know and love (or loathe!) as our own
just couldn't exist.
</culturerant>
> > > I'll still stand by the 2nd Amendment, though it appears you'll be
> > > misrepresenting it shortly.
> >
> > Probably! Its been more than 12 years since I was in US High School.
>
> It's really easy. "A well regulated militia being necessary to a free
> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be
> infringed." And only the part after the comma is important because the
> first clause is merely justification. From my perspective if we can
> agree on the meaning of an 'arm' and to 'infringe' then the whole
> argument goes the way I see it. Which is that I, as a citizen of the
> USA, have complete rights to own and operate in a safe manner _any_ tool
> that could reasonably be considered a weapon. (People freak out when I
> state this, because I mean weapons of mass destruction too, but that's
> what the law says...we have a process for changing it if we think it's wrong.)
Now here's where we part ways, Chris. Are you
aware of how armies were levied in the British model
during the eighteenth century? There wasn't a standing
army of any size during peacetime--levies from the
countryside were vital for colonial defence. In Britain
itself, the settlement of 1689 prohibited a standing
army without the annual consent of Parliament--on
an island, it just wasn't necessary, when a reserve
could be raised on very short notice and armies moved
ten miles a day on the average.
So the "militia" wasn't really to protect the citizenry
from a potentially corrupt government--although that
interpretation has evolved, and I think it's a valid one--
but rather to defend the nation from outside forces in
the absence of any standing army. "Free" state meant
free from *outside* domination. The idea of inside
domination was rather silly--if the Framers were so
very worried about preventing police states and
oppressive central governments, why on Earth did
they extol the virtues of France and accept its aid
when Louis XVI was about as absolutist a monarch
and France about as strongly centralized a police
state as could ever exist? The answer is that they
trusted in reason and responsible government--not
the prospect of needing to take up arms against it.
As to the freak-out point of weapons of mass
destruction, that's a gross distortion of the intent
of the Second Amendment, not to mention any
possible reading of it--in the early United States,
for example, people could own small arms but
owning *cannon* was not only rare but alarming!
Weapons of "mass destruction" (a strange term
to try and apply to the 18th and 19th centuries)
were kept in reserve at artillery parks or armories,
just as they are today, and issued to the militia
at the time of mobilization. Had the right to bear
arms been interpreted so loosely, you might have
ended up with the same situation as evolved in
China between 1900 and 1928, when the Qing
government (and its Nationalist successor) had
not the resources or the freedom to place limits--
namely, a quasi-feudal system of local warlords.
So I'm in favor of available weapons--but not the
weapons of mass and wanton destruction on a
national or global scale. Weapons designed to
destroy thousands should not be in the hands of
individuals, for there is precisely *no* value to
them other than the pre-emptive and offensive.
> > > there, and I've profited from it, so I don't complain too much.) I
> > > think there was lots of reason (inarguably) for firearms to be
> > > commonplace at the time.
> >
> > But somewhat less-so justification now, or more so? Discounting the
> > personal protection element. (A point which I *might* concede to having
> > *possible* justification, in light of how heavily armed criminals and
> > neighbours are).
>
> As others (Larry maybe) have pointed out, justification isn't really the
> point over here. It is simply a right and an important part of out
> collective national heritage. You might concede the self-protection
> point in light of armed criminals and neighbors, but what about our own
> government? This is more important in my mind because it's the direct
> cause of the 2nd existing.
See above. We're looking for fascists so
fervently, that we're starting to develop a
bunker mentality. And I'm totally in disagree-
ment with you on the "reason" for the RKBA
existing--as a historian, I can tell you that the
colonists considered themselves Britons until
1775, so they believed London was "their" gov't
but in fact it was not and had never been, since
the Crown assumed control of colonies in the
late 1600s. It's all bound up in issues of identity
as colonists and Britons that I don't want to get
into here--but suffice to say that the apparent
"defence from our own bad and injudicious
government" clause is not the primary reason
we have the 2d Amendment.
I'll dig up citations if anyone wants them--but
a few good studies exist of how colonists tried
to assert Britishness only to be rebuffed by
King and Parliament both. They were subjects,
not citizens.
> > someone more significant, I don't remember)). An attempt to point
> > out the fact that the West (UK, US, French, others), today's "Global Police,"
> > are as guilty of the same crimes they are trying to right in the present,
> > that they had committed in the past.
>
> When I was a kid, I used to make certain memorable mistakes. Now I have
> a little boy of my own, and I try (often futilely) to help him not make
> the same ones. Some of my later childish mistakes were criminal acts of
> victimization (most often property) and were patently evil. It seems by
> your logic (maybe this isn't what you mean to imply?) that since I made
> those mistakes, I am now unable to try to stop others from that. The US
> did some bad things (native genocide, maybe dropping the bomb on Japan?,
> etc.). We now try to help other governments avoid those poor choices.
This is American triumphalism, Chris--and
probably the most pernicious manifestation
of US imperialism today. It's closely tied to
development theory, namely that the West
(and more specifically, the United States)
represents the pinnacle of human achievement
that these "less developed" states can reach
only with our help, since they're obviously
less capable of managing their own affairs.
It's terrifically simplistic to equate horrible
and genocidal acts with childhood--and not
only that, but it's just plain wrong, since it's
often the West (broadly defined) that created
and then *maintained*--and still do--the order
that makes this sort of thing happen over and
over, ad nauseum.
That said, I do agree that we should be doing
something about Kosova--but I don't agree
with how it's being done. Unfortunately, in
European realpolitik (did anyone see Susan
Sontag's piece from the NYT magazine a few
weeks ago?) it may be the only way anything
at all could have been done. Witness Rwanda.
I'm afraid my pessimism shows through--I
agree with many of your points, Chris,
but not at all with your justification for them.
> I only have one book on my desk right now to reference, but I have
> others at home and there are other in the library. See _The Great
> American Gun Debate_ by Don B. Kates, Jr. and Gary Kleck. They set out
> to demonstrate that guns cause crime and their research turned them
> around and they use this book to explain why many popular notions about
> gun control are wrong. They also acknowledge that they don't have all
> the answers.
If they did, they'd have made their careers and
put lots of people out of work! Who are the
authors, by the way? I mean, what institution,
who funded the research, what discipline are
they from? I'll probably go look at that book
this weekend and report back...I can see it now:
"new group: lugnet.off-topic.book-reviews"
> > Conflicting studies can be used to form a vague middle ground, though.
>
> I agree that this a place to start, but genuine critical analysis
> requires that we check out the studies for procedural flaws and the
> like...lots of hard work really.
"Is there a sociologist in the house?"
-LFB.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| Mr L F Braun wrote in message <373D07C9.3E786497@p...su.edu>... (...) wrong.) (...) Your entirely ignoring the reason for the Declaration of Independance... The reason the United States has its own government totally independant of England is (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Hi. (...) But, the people of the colonies and the people of Britain had different worries. I don't want to get into a historical debate, because I am simply not equipped to do so...I mean I'm ignorant in comparison to you. (unless you're (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) You know, I don't get that. I've seen lots of newsgroups explode into US v. Canada or US v. UK debates, and its always so silly. Ultimately, you get a tiny little say in what goes on in your government and I get a tiny little say in mine, but (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
