Re: OT: Re: Cats in space

From: Peter Stickney (peter_at_Mineshaft.local)
Date: 11/04/04 

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:19:57 -0500

In article <8hrjo0t0a1dkucuhspc5rcqra6cquo7vb4@4ax.com>,
        Dale <drc@oz.net> writes:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 06:28:34 GMT, Scott Lowther
> <scottlowther@ix.netcomSPAMBLOK.com> wrote:
>
>>Pat Flannery wrote:
>
>>> for instance. But then you get to "the right to keep
>>> and bear arms" part, and it sounds like a guarantee of arms ownership.
>>
>>
>>Doesn;t just sound like... that's what it is.
>>
>>"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
>>State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
>>infringed."
>>
>>Note that it says that this is a right of *the* *people* to keep and
>>bear arms... no infringement. Everywhere else that the Bill of Rights
>>mentions "the people," it means regualr schmoes... NOT some form of
>>government.
>
> Were there any instances during the first few generations of Americans
> living under the Constitution of people being challenged for private
> ownership of heavy weapons, such as cannon? While the Second Amendment
> was probably intended not for hunting, as you suggest, but rather as a
> last-ditch check on the power of the government vs the people's will,
> did its authors really envision the development of the fire power that
> would be available to the government's side of the equation?
>

That didn't happen, oficially, until the National Firearms Act of
1934. Prior to that, there were no restrictions, other than the basic
practicality of dealig with the expense and hassle of, say, the care
and feeding of a cannon. (And its crew). It wasn't at all unusal,
after all, for a merchant ship to carry a few guns for the purpose of
keeping Pirates at bay (And Piracy certainly has continued since the
time of the Barbary Coast War - "The Shores of Tripoli" through the
present day - the South China Seas are rife with pirates) and Customs
Officials honest (Although the distinction between some nation's
Customs Officals and Pirates was, shall we say, nominal at best, much
like today) There were private forts in the Colonial Era, and during
the expansion westward.

It really wasn't seen to be a problem at all until the late 1800's,
when various members of the Chicago Establishment started to get
nervous about immigrant Germans forming their own Marching & Chowder
Societies. Once again, the idea that, as the Firesign Theatre put it,
"Small angry men with hairy faces adn burning feet" could carry guns,
get jobs that didn't involve closely supervised fetching and carrying,
and might even sully their wives and daughters sent them into
screeching fits.

The excesses of the Gangster Era, (much if it excess publicity,
really) led to restrictions on the legal purchace of automatic
weapons, and stuff larger than .50 Cal. (Not that that kept anything
out of the hands of the gangsters. It's legal to own, say, a
Medium Tank, or a Jet Fighter. If you want to jump through the
regulatory hoops and BATF hassles (And yes, the BATF has been known to
capriciously hassle law abiding citizens - as have any Treasury
Department Enforcers - it's safer than going after the Really Bad Guys)
you can even have one that's fully armed.

> I'm sure you agree that it's reasonable to restrict individuals from owning
> a nuclear weapon or some other "weapon of mass destruction", such as
> are available in the arsenals of even some pretty third-rate military powers
> today, let alone that of the U.S.. So, where do you draw the line? The belief that
> the Second Amendment is somehow sacred because it gives all us yahoos
> a final defense against the power of The State went out the window long ago.
> If you can draw the line at individual ownership of A-bombs or even conventional
> bombs, why is it so hard to understand that some feel a weapon you can use
> to mow down a whole schoolyard of children without even moving your finger
> might be beyond what was considered a reasonable right to "bear arms", even
> at the time the Bill of Rights was written?

Becasue it is well and truly irrelevant, when you look at it
logically. The largest mass murder in the country was comitted with a
gallon of Gasoline (Starlight Social Club, New York). A single Rock
& Roll performance in Rhode Island knocked off 100 people, all without
"Weapons of Mass Destruction". The Hutus and the Tutsis managed
between them to off about a million people with machetes and pointed
sticks. The idea that legal reatrictions on the general populace is
going to restrain those of ill will by their very existance is naive
and foolish. (Naive becasue it assumes that those who would so
greatly transgress Society's norms would have respect for any norms,
and foolish becasue it creates a false sense of safety. Unless you're
some kind of Animist, and believe that inanimate objects control ou,
it's not he tool, its the wielder thereof.) For that matter, just
recently we had about a dozen or so school kids mowed down by a geezer
that "lost control" (Pilot Error) of his Buick. Imagine what he could
have accomplished with, say, a dump truck.

Who needs an olive-drab painted "Weapon of Mass Destruction" when
there are tank cars full of Propane, or Anhydrous Ammonia, or all
manner of other stuff, passing along the railroads every day? 

-- 
Pete Stickney
 A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
 bad measures.  -- Daniel Webster

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Biking w/o Cindy Sheehan
    ... >> Bill C wrote: ... >> Even the weapons used to deliver these agents ... The Israelis used it brilliantly to plan to, ... > If this was only about effective attacks, ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Bill would open sales of automatic weapons
    ... Gun dealers, manufacturers and private citizens could possess automatic ... weapons under a bill considered Thursday by the House Federal and State ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: ...and i thought it was bad in THIS country...
    ... Why do you assume that the growing, hostile regional Power must ... it from purchasing its weapons from a neutral third party, ... possible during the Cold War, but with the right diplomacy it _might_ ... all powerful threat ... ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Bill would open sales of automatic weapons
    ... Gun dealers, manufacturers and private citizens could possess automatic ... weapons under a bill considered Thursday by the House Federal and State ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: "Reasonable Restrictions" on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
    ... "Reasonable Restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms. ... A person cannot have life, liberty, or property taken without "due process ...  The parent decides if and to which church the ... of limitations on who may keep and bear arms, what kinds of weapons should ...
    (rec.martial-arts)