Re: GUNS: Why here?
From: Joe Dees (joedees@addall.com)
Date: Tue Sep 19 2000 - 21:38:47 MDT
('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:37:07 -0700
>From: Forrest Bishop <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>
>To: extropians@extropy.com
>Subject: Re: GUNS: Why here?
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>
>From: hal@finney.org
>Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:45:29 -0700
>Subject: Re: GUNS: Why here?
>
>>Corey asks,
>>> What exactly IS the relevance of the gun discussion to Extropianism?
>
>>I think many contemporary issues have great relevance to Extropianism,
>>not only guns, but abortion and drug policy as well.
>
>>With guns, we have a dangerous technology. Should it be in the hands
>of
>>private individuals? Or should society reserve access to the
>government?
>>This question is going to arise more and more in the future.
>
>The reason for an armed populace is very, very fundamental:
>
>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
>equal, that they are
>endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
>these are
>Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these
>rights, Governments
>are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
>the governed,
>--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
>ends, it is
>the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
>Government,
>laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
>such form, as to
> them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
>Prudence, indeed,
>will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for
>light and
>transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that
>mankind are more
>disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves
>by abolishing
>the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses
>and
>usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
>reduce them
>under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw
>off such
>Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--. ..."
>
>This is the purpose of the Second Amendment, which is taken from the
>The Virginia Declaration of Rights
>http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/virginia.html
>
>"Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the
>people,
>trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free
>state; that
>standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to
>liberty;
>and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination
>to, and
>governed by, the civil power."
>
A well-regulated militia was intended to protect the powers of the states against federal usurpation (which is why states were supposed to be their regulators); this was also the reason for the 10th amendment (that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government should devolve to the states). However, the Civil War proved that states could not exercise a right to secede from the Union, and the state National Guards keep their weapons in armories, unlike the militias, which depended upon the citizen-soldiers to furnish their own.
>
>Something well over 50 million state-sponsored deaths in various regions
>
>occured during the 20th Century as the direct result of gun control,
>often within
>a few years after a general confiscation. This 'experiment' has been run
>enough
>times to form a postulate:
>Guns don't kill people, despotic governments do.
>
But gun control was not practiced by those governments - citizen disarmament was. There should be no argument that while sane and law-abiding citizens should have the right to keep and bear, that the means to commit quick and easy long-range mass murder should be, as much as possible, kept out of the hands of kids, criminals and psychos, who cannot discharge the resposibilities concomittant with such rights in a responsible manner. Certainly they should not be able to simply walk into a Wal-Mart and legally purchase such killing tools at a moment's notice. This is the type of gun control that I, and all reasonable people, support.
>
>>Another common thread in all of these issues is that not only will
>there
>>be new challenges, but they will become much more difficult to detect
>>and control. Today you can theoretically catch someone who is buying
>>guns, getting an abortion, or purchasing drugs.
>
>All of which are microscopic issues compared to the manifold crimes of
>the state.
>Detecting a US-operated regional death camp in Iraq, or the
>mass-drugging
>of schoolchildren (Ritalin, crank) in the US, just for a couple
>examples, does
>not require very advanced technology.
>
>>The issues we face today, difficult as they are to deal with, are only
>>a taste of the problems ahead. We need to identify sound philosophical
>
>>principles which can guide our decisions on these matters, in order to
>>chart a consistent course through the issues we will soon be dealing
>with.
>
>See above, also Federalist papers, other writings of Jefferson, etc.
>
>I hope this is quite clear.
>
As I expect my points are.
>
>--
>Forrest Bishop
>Chairman,
>Institute of Atomic-Scale Engineering
>http://www.iase.cc
------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:04 MST