> Greg Ritt:
>
> >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.
>
>
You can't get a government gone by fighting their tanks and jet-fighters.
As a matter of fact I can't recall much cases where the government was
thrown over because the people had access to weapons superior or equal to
the government. The thing that makes the state and the govermant are the
taxes you pay, the things you make (that is goods) and all things like
that.
Once people get pissed off enough so that they will pay the taxes no
more, cut off comunication/electricity to the government offices, etc
(that is - make a revolution) the government will have to deal with them
somehow. In which case heavy artillery, jet-fighters and A-bombs make no
good. Because everyone will consider it to be too much and the situation
will get even worser. It will have to also use guns (that is - send the
troops to the places to make the order stand again and find the
culprites) and at most tanks, making the owning of guns/access to highly
flammable materials the citicens considerable armed.
>
>
> >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
>