From: Ron Kean (ronkean@juno.com)
Date: Thu May 27 1999 - 10:40:53 MDT
On Thu, 27 May 1999 04:09:12 +0100 "Craig Dibble"
<craig@slob-squad.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>2) Have you pro gun activists got any idea how completely mad you
>sound to
>non Americans?
>
The USA is one of the top gun-owning countries, but there are others
which have as high or higher rates of gun ownership. Switzerland and
Afghanistan, for instance, though those two countries could hardly be
more different from each other. In Switzerland, target shooting is a
popular sport, with a patriotic flavor. Most adult males (up to 50 years
of age) are members of the militia and normally keep a military rifle at
home. Switzerland claims that it can mobilize a 600,000 man force in 48
hours.
Traditionally, rural Afghanistan is heavily armed and rather lawless,
something like the Wild West, though the Afghans possess a high sense of
honor and hospitality. In the 1700s the Afghans would steal or capture
muzzle-loading guns from the British, and make copies, right down to the
insignia. There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that some Afghans once
stealthily looted a British armory, replacing the guns with copies, and
the British were unaware of the switch.
In Russia, surprisingly, gun ownership is widespread today in rural
areas, though I don't know if that was so during the most repressive
years of communism.
>I'm probably going to provoke more rancid vitriol and get shot down
>in
>flames for saying this, but just because something is written in your
>precious constitution or your bill of rights does not mean that it is
>the be
>all and end all, that it is simply the only thought worth entertaining
>and
>no alternatives shall be brooked. If this were the case, can you
>explain to
>me exactly why there are so many, or indeed *any* amendments to your
>constitution? I can think of one answer to this: Because it is
>imperfect.
Agreed that the US Constitution is imperfect, but if one were to try to
write a 'perfect' constitution, it's perfection would be judged on how
well it achieves its objectives. And different objectives would result
in different constitutions. The Bill of Rights is the first 10
amendments, and those were negotiated as a package between the time that
the constitution was first written (1787) and its adoption, the
understanding being that the Bill of Rights would be addled soon after
the constitution went into effect (1789). There were actually 12
amendments in the (1789) proposed Bill of Rights, two did not make it
when the 10 amendments were adopted in 1791, although one of the two was
ratified 202 years later in 1992, and it is now the 27th amendment.
It
>was a hashed up solution to the problems of the time and no clear
>thought
>was given to its long term consequences. As such, situations have
>arisen
>which the constitution was never designed to contend with and it has
>had to
>be modified. It is in no way set in stone. Times change, and laws
>must
>change with them.
This is true, up to a point, but the Constitution has proven to be quite
durable. During the 200 or so years that the US Constitution has been in
effect, the USA has arguably been more successful, by many measures, than
most other countries. With the exception of the Civil War, the US track
record of stability has rivalled that of the most stable countries during
that time period.
To advocate extropian beliefs on the one hand, and
>dogmatic adherence to a quite clearly imperfect constitution on the
>other
>hand seems somewhat at odds to me. But excuse me if I am stepping on
>your
>constitutionally protected toes here, I mean no harm, I'm just curious
>as to
>how you can rationalize this.
>
>
>
It is not necessarily the case that supporters of gun rights base their
support mainly on a dogmatic adherence to the Constitution. My
impression is that pro-gun rights people believe in gun rights as a
philosophical matter, and would believe just as strongly if gun ownership
were not even mentioned in the Constitution. The fact that the Second
Amendment exists is welcomed by pro-gun rights people, as it may provide
a legal basis for arguing against gun control laws, but the Second
Amendment is not the reason they believe as they do.
An interesting thing about the Constitution is how major provisions of
the Constitution are seemingly ignored. The Second Amendment is an
excellent example of this. The amendment states, in part, that 'the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' But
most large cities, and many states, have draconian gun control laws which
would seem to be unconstitutional on their face. And the multi-million
member NRA, a powerful pro-gun lobbying group, seems completely unable to
get any gun control laws invalidated by the courts on constitutional
grounds.
Ron Kean
.
.
.
.
.
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:49 MST