Friday, April 6, 2007

Letters: Yet more on guns

George Seaman offers a measured, reasonable and totally academic argument asserting support in the ninth and tenth amendments for drooling nutbars to carry M16s on my street.

Can we please get past this stuff? With the technology available over the counter at our local gun shops, ten zealots could have ruled the world of the 18th century. The founders could not have imagined what was coming -- if they had, those amendments would have been written rather differently, I'm certain.

What we need is a measured, reasonable discussion of how we deal with this technology in our midst, in terms of both physical possession and the process of socially integrating individuals to minimize the number of wackos out there.


leftturnclyde said...

what the framers were talking about was a citizens militia..I see no problem with this IMHO I feel that Firearm ownership is then a requirement of citzenship since as I read it we are all expected to take part in national defense and since we are "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" or I guess we could leave that whole thing to the current King ..excuse me POTUS and his buddy dick
As to the danger of drooling idiots with dangerous tech..have you observed some of the folks who are walking around with chainsaws
? or who have access to computers?

leftturnclyde said...

oh and superior technology will beat superior numbers but not 10 against the world ..maybe one country against the world but they would have to keep the tech a secret and that genie is damn hard to keep in the bottle
look at how the nuke club is growing

geo4dist1 said...


I like this blog! Thanks for pointing me to it.

Two points:

First, the 18th century was indeed probably ruled by 10 zealots (or less), who used their higher level of technology to subjagate the entire world. The Am Rev was fought against just such odds. The dawn of the industrial revolution allowed for the people to produce the weapons necessary to overthrow such despots. No coincidence that the first battle of the revolution was over access to ammunition.

Second is the obsevation that while the second amendment may indeed be anachronistic, the framers allowed for a way to modify it. The one thing they were all certain of was the fact that they could not see into the future and therefore any viable constitution would need an amendment process. If we think the second is outdated, we should engage in a national debate (which I would gladly welcome) about how best to amend it. We should not allow the courts to simply twist the meaning to fit current times. This is a clear abdication of the responsibilties of citizenship. What would then become of the other rights we hold so dear? Such a twisting of the inent of the framers would lead inexoribly to the ultimate need for a citizen militia, the overthrow of tyrrany.

Regulate the mitlitia, as long as it reamins a citizen militia and does not receive its "just powers" from the government, after all it was our declaration which stated clearly that the govenerment receives its just powers from the governed. I do not know about you, but the last group I trust to defend liberty is a governement.


leftturnclyde said...

welcome to the blog george !
more the merrier!

Steven Ayres said...

Geo=> We should not allow the courts to simply twist the meaning to fit current times.

I'd argue that allowing that to happen is what's brought us to the present pass -- I'm clearly in the minority in this country on how I interpret the Second Amendment.

But my point is that we have to focus on what's good for society now. I don't think there's any question that Americans are quite happy to throw "shall not be infringed" out the window, and as a result I can't legally own an Abrams tank. So we've decided to make a deal on this, we've just yet to agree on specific terms.

We can have that talk about whether to trust government later.

Anonymous said...

A few m-16's and some time travel and we're in business!