[ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com
Sat Jul 12 19:10:11 UTC 2008


Spike writes

> we can handle it without excessive fighting, I don't see why not.  Our
> biggest gun screamers are gone now methinks.  Your original question is
> valid as all hell.  We must understand that the job of the court is not to
> talk about gun safety, crime rates, any of that stuff.  Those things are the
> legislature's problem.  Rather the court's job is only to study the
> constitution and decide what they think the founders had in mind, and why
> they wrote what they did.
> 
> In my mind it is clear enough that the founders wanted the citizenry to be
> armed to resist any government that wished to take away the rights listed in
> the first ten amendments.  Those cannot be legally abrogated.  They also
> recognized that the original states had dangerous neighbors to the north,
> south and west, and yet another one to the east across the sea.  They wanted
> the citizenry to be able to fight invaders until a regular army arrived.

Well, okay, but I had asked in another thread:

But the problem is that if we try to smoothly analogize
what was the intent behind an older law to cover present
circumstances, we encounter some severe problems:

Consider tanks and atomic bombs.  Are they also to be included
in your desire that   "the citizenry to be armed to resist any
government that wished to take away the rights listed in
the first ten amendments"?

Thanks,
Lee



(My own answer---though of course it is debatable---is that 
atomic weaponry would not be a factor in a citizen uprising.
As for tanks and missiles, what cannot be obtained by 
the citizens taking over the local National Guard armories is
not worth bothering about.  Therefore, an amendment should
be made to the 2nd Amendment:  namely, that the rights of
citizens to bear arms should be guaranteed up to but not
including weapons of mass destruction.  End of particular
opinion.)





More information about the extropy-chat mailing list