Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 May 1999 15:49:59 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabsIHATESPAM.missouri.edu
|
Viewed:
|
898 times
|
| |
|
|
Mr L F Braun wrote:
>
> Hi!
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.)
>
> 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.
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 making stuff up ;-)
> 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.
I think they just needed the help. I also think that you are wrong to
some extent. I don't have the Federalist papers in front of me, but I
recall some good self-government paranoia being exhibited therein. I do
have some quotes from Jefferson (admittedly only one of the great
thinkers involved) on the matter of Rebellion:
"I hold that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as
necessary in the political world...[and] is a medicine necessary for the
sound health of government." (From a letter to James Madison, 30 Jan, 1787.)
"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion (Shay's,
I think)...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with
the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is the natural manure." (From a
letter to William Stephens Smith, 13 Nov, 1787)
> 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
I still disagree. My reading suggests that the real point was to ensure
that the people were armed such that they could throw off the yoke of an
oppressive tyranny. Thus, it is my opinion (and I believe theirs) that
the people must have access to arms equal to those of the government.
> 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!
OK, I simply don't have any accounts of this. I was under the
impression that the war of 1812 was won (or at least endured) because of
lots of merchant ships that were armed with cannon. If I'm not wrong in
this recollection, then it can't have been too awfully rare.
> Weapons of "mass destruction" (a strange term
> to try and apply to the 18th and 19th centuries)
Right. I agree that it doesn't 'translate' perfectly.
> 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
And those militia were controlled/directed by locals rather than a
central autonomous well organized institution with instantaneous communications.
> 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.
Oh. :-)
> 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.
Read a short piece of fiction if you are so inclined: _The Ungoverned_
by Vernor Vinge. It can be found in the book _True Names and Other
Dangers_ or the book _Accross Realtime_.
> > 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 don't understand how this impact the cause of the 2nd. You say it
does, and I don't want to dispute someone who clearly knows more than I
do about the relevant history, but you haven't explained to me how this
colonial identity crisis affects the second at all.
> > 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
Well, I think that's true. Sorry. (I just hope we don't stop here,
cause it's not good enough.)
> that these "less developed" states can reach
> only with our help, since they're obviously
> less capable of managing their own affairs.
I don't think that. I just think that we might be able to guide them to
where we've arrived without stumbling over the same obstacles that we
had to. And maybe I'm wrong. I argue the other side with respect to
North Korea. I think we shouldn't spend so much time preventing them
from using fissionable material, and let them grow up. I ultimately
think we won't ever really get inside their frame of mind and so our
ability to help them is limited. This maybe the same in Rwanda, but we
should have intervened just because it was so horrific. I think we
stand a better chance in Serbia, but not the way we're going.
> 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
It's not just plain wrong. It's just an analogy, and you shouldn't read
too much meaning into it, but the idea behind it is sound. I do try to
help me son not make the mistakes I made, and we should do the same as a
nation, at least sometimes.
> 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.
Examples, please.
> 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
Yeah, I think that Allbright (is that the right person?) should have
drawn a gun from her purse and shot Milosevic the last time they met.
That might get the ball rolling.
> 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,
Published by the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. Kates is
a criminologist and Civil Rights Lawyer, and Kleck is a professor at the
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| Hi again, (...) I try only to make stuff up when it's inconsequential. ;) My "field" isn't early US/18th C. Britain, it's later, so all I have is ancillary knowledge and methodological things. I'm in agreement with the "they had different worries" (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
