> JP said:
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.
They might not. Yuo don't turn down governments with handguns - you need
the handguns (or bows) when you have risen up to defend your basic human
right (so that they just couldn't walk around and shoot the every second
man and rape his wife and daughter for the others to remember how they
should behave).
>
> 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).
>
Dissolution of the USSR? There was a moment when the parts of it
(especialy russia) wanted to have more power to judge the things by
themselves. So they got rid of the central goverment. But due to the
nature the economical system existed in there and as there never was any
attempt from the West to improve the situation in any other of the former
states but russia, it didn't quite get to it's end.
And a bit news for them who do not hear (or don't want to hear or just
are not told throug the media) - russian parliament invalidated the
treaties by which the USSR was divided into separate independent states -
so near soon there will be a "unified" russia in the place of the USSR -
and as the people haven't changed, so won't the politics.
> > >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
But you can't solve the problemn in reality like you can do it in SimCity
> 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
>