>IMO, the philosophical reasoning behind the US Constitution's 2nd
>Amendment (the one about bearing arms, for all you outside the
>states) is not that clear.
I think it's pretty clear Greg. It's simple - (1) the people hated taxes
and the british troops. Hence, (2) they realized that the government should
not be the only people with miltary-style powers. Hence, (3) citizens
should be allowed to form militias.
You are quite correct that the 2nd amendment really didn't mean 'carry guns
so as to protect yourself from criminals'. It entirely meant 'form citizen
armies so as to protect yourself from the governent'.
IMHO the CORRECT current interpretation would be .. 'arms' should mean
exactly whatever the government uses. IE, the citizens of the US should be
allowed to organize, build B52s, tanks, C3 warfare etc .. whatever the US
army uses.
Because the 2nd amendment is about PEOPLE protecting themselves FROM GOVERNMENT.
>Today, however, even a
>populace armed with assault rifles wouldn't stand much of a
>chance against a government armed with jet fighter, rocket
>launchers, tanks, and tactical nuclear warheads.
Exactly what I'm saying .. the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment
is that you and I shoudl be able to form a group and get 'arms', which in
constitutional day meant sabers, then muskets, and now the things in your
list there.
>The last time that the "right to bear arms" was
>useful to any group was in the U.S. Civil War ..
Exactly. That's like saying 'the only time warfare was useful recently was
in putting down hitler'.
The second amendment exists for the very reason that occasionally the
govenrment needs to be brought into line.
(Of course, nowadays it is common for people to believe government has
reached a state of perfection and there will never again be any
revolutions, violence, perfidy or persecution by government, etc.)
Revolutions _so and will_ happen. The US gov't, like, all governments
ever, will become more and more corrupt and more and more perfidious, more
and more persecutionary and more and more confiscatory. To think otherwise
is an absurd conceit. It's only a matter of when you think it wil happen.
>I think restrictions on carrying weapons, limits on the # of guns
>an individual can own, waiting periods before purchase,
>background checks, and bans on automatic assault and plastic-
>bodied weapons are all reasonable compromises that allow people
>to still "protect their homes," but allow law enforcement to get
>dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.
>
I think this thinking is limited. Either you do otr don't think people
should be able to protect themselves. Obviously, if you think they SHOULD
be able to protect themselves .. they should be able to carry the most
potent possible device. Whatever has the most RAM possible.
___________________________
jp may jpm@tweb.com
(801) 272-TWEB Tel
TWEB.COM licence plate
my nickname: peekaboo