From: Randall R Randall (rrandall6@juno.com)
Date: Mon Dec 22 1997 - 22:17:37 MST
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 20:54:02 -0500 Wayne Hayes <wayne@cs.toronto.edu>
writes:
>
>rrandall6@juno.com (Randall R Randall) writes:
>>Without the right to bear arms, the rest of the rights are temporary,
>>and can be withdrawn at any time.
>
>They are not temporary; they are *potentially* temporary.
Well, yes. :) I misspoke.
>>As long as the citizens of a country are
>>militarily more powerful than the government, that government cannot
>>step too far out of line.
>
>That would be a good point if it were actually true in the US, but it
>isn't. And besides, your Constitutional rights in the US are being
>eroded faster than you can keep track of them, despite your citizens
>being armed.
It's a good point anyway, even though it isn't true in most places. Only
a few citizens in the US are armed at anything like the level which would
be required. That's not so much a problem with how few guns the citizens
have, as with how many the government has. I would like to amend my
earlier statement to point out that I meant 'militarily' to include
*useful* military power. Strategic nukes don't really count, since they
can't use them against their own citizens.
>>If you are free only with another's permission, then you are not free
>>at all.
<snipped discussion of the queen's signing>
Well, actually I was referring to government in general...
Wolfkin.
rrandall6@juno.com
Dream if you will, but remember there are iron laws.--Johnny Clegg.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:15 MST