Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 May 1999 04:19:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
901 times
|
| |
|
|
Mr L F Braun wrote in message <373D07C9.3E786497@pilot.msu.edu>...
> Hi!
>
> Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> > 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.)
>
> 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.
Your entirely ignoring the reason for the Declaration of Independance... The
reason the United States has its own government totally independant of
England is precisely that the founders of our nation saw that the government
of England was oppressive and corrupt. We accepted aid from France because
we needed aid, and the French had a few bones to pick with England.
Note the pre-amble of the Bill of Rights: "THE Conventions of a number of
the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed
a desire, in order to prevent minsconstruction or abuse of its powers, that
further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as
extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best
ensure the benificent ends of its institution:"
The founding fathers were quite concerned about the government getting out
of control.
> 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.
While I would prefer that weapons of mass destruction be excluded from the
2nd amendment guarantee, I can see two reasoning that they should be
included:
1. The 9th and 10th amendments which basically say that just because the
Constitution doesn't mention something, doesn't mean its not covered, in
fact, anything not explicitly given to the government to control is reserved
for the people or the states.
2. The British march on Concord, April 19, 1775 was to confiscate guns AND
cannon from the people. As I have mentioned before, I believe that the march
on Concord is one of the reasons for the 2nd amendment.
> 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.
Again, your ignoring the whole reason for the Revolution. It may be true
that in the eyes of the King, the colonists were subjects and not citizens,
and thus not entitled to representation etc. etc. etc. But the fact is that
the colonists revolted because they felt that they did have the rights of
citizenship and therefore of representation, etc.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| Sorry for the absence--it's been a long week. (...) I'm not talking about accepting French aid--which was instrumental to our success--but in exalting the French and the aristocracy of that country. There was a ton of Francophilia going on in the (...) (26 years ago, 21-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| Hi! (...) <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 (...) (26 years ago, 15-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
|
|
|
|
