If it were clear, it wouldn't be such a hotly debated issue. When
I said it's "not clear" I guess I should have said it's
interpretation has changed over the years and it has accumulated
different meanings and purposes.
[snip]
> 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.
In the 18th century people could afford arms competitive with the
government. In the 20th century there are NO people (not event
Gates, Perot, Rockefeller, & Forbes together) who could afford
arms competitive with the government. Perhaps certain corporate
conglomerates could afford such weaponry, but why would you
assume that turning the responsibility for your protection over
to (presumably non-democratic) corporate conglomerates would be
even remotely better or more liberating than gov't military?
Technological advance has made the original intent of the 2nd
amendment moot. The people--and I mean the literal group of all
citizens--doesn't have the resources to militarily protect
themselves from the government. Our best bet at this point is to
improve the democratic process, and use an effective democracy to
protect ourselves from the government (and each other).
[snip]
> 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.
Probably, but they won't be military revolutions. The 18th
century was the Age of Revolution, but since then the power
difference between the populace and the military has grown so
huge that the populace can't compete with the military, esp. in
industrialized countries.
There will never be a successful uprising in the US where the
citizens take the country by force with handguns. Forget about
it. A couple good strafes from an Apache attack copter and it's
all over.
I'm sure there will be revolutions, but they will be revolutions
of ideas or democratic revolutions or diplomatic revolutions. You
need only to look to the Soviet Union to see what I mean--the
dissolution of the USSR will be the model for 21st century
revolution (which may be kinda sad because not all that much
changed...but that's kinda typical for revolutions anyway).
> >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.
As usual, what you consider obvious is not so outside your own
head. :) By that line of reasoning, we should all have rocket
launchers and SAM-9's hanging over the mantle.
I think people should be protected. That doesn't necessarily mean
arming the populace to the teeth. Better police forces increase
protection. Better home security increases protection. Better
safety education increases protection. Decreasing crime increases
protection. Decreasing poverty increases protection. Increasing
education increases protection.
Decreasing the amount of guns in circulation increases
protection.
Crime is a symptom of social problems (hell, SimCity can show you
that!). People arming themselves to the teeth is a response to
the symptom, but it does nothing to solve the problem, and
instead adds to the problem.
-- Greg Ritter gritter@felix.vcu.edu ritter@urvax.urich.edu http://www.urich.edu/~ritter