On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Dean Forster wrote:
> The structure of the government- the checks and
> balances- are described elsewhere, and I honestly
> believe that the framers could have relaxed a bit in
> their fed vs state argument to craft a document that
> says it's "Of the people, by the people, and for the
> people." It even mentions people in the 2nd
> prominently.
(Really arguing grammar now...) It says, "the people's" as I recall,
which isn't really clear in distinguishing between individuals as such or
the mass of people in general, well regulated by their states.
I actually agree with you to some degree...the 2nd amendment appears (to
me) to declare that, in order to make sure that the state shall always be
able to raise a militia, the government shall not make laws preventing
people access to arms. On the other hand, it does not say, "the
government shall make no law concerning the individual's right to own a
gun." I think the intent is somewhere in between, prohibiting an outright
ban, but also allowing for organization and regulation by the states.
"Well regulated militia" is the standard set forth by the amdendment for
such organization.
> After all, if gun ownership
> > were a sacred
> > personal right all on its own, then it could have
> > been placed in the 1st
> > amendment.
>
> By that token, it could be taken that you mean the
> amendments are placed in order of importance?
No, I mean that the first amendment, far more than the second, is
structured to express outright prohibitions against certain kinds of
federal acts. By comparison the second amendment erects a set of
(grammatically indecisive, IMO) contexts and conditions within which a
"right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" exists. If the
purpose of the second amendment were an outright ban on gun control laws,
it would be structured like the first. On the other hand, I think the 2nd
amendment does include an outright ban on federal gun bans, but the
context implies that this is not for the benefit of individuals so much as
for the states.
> I would
> rather be guaranteed free speech over the means to
> defend myself with force. I usually talk a bit to
> people before I start shooting. ;)
I dunno...in the computer games I play, that's rarely a good tactic....
:-)) I usually sneak up and shoot 'em in the head if I can get away with
it.
> oy glavin, always with the questions. I don't think
> the framers were concentrating that hard on legalistic
> subterfuge.
Not subterfuge, but subtlety, surely. Subtle language is the hallmark of
difficult, uneasy compromises, which were what the federalists and
antifederalists had to craft in order to create a union of states.
> But they aren't- several court cases have judged that
> the police are only responsible for the citizenry at
> large. If they fail in their duty to protect one
> person, they are not liable. Anything else would have
> all of the PD's in the country bankrupt in a week, of
> course. But it makes you think- who's going to be
> responsible for your safety if not yourself? And how
> will you do it?
Ok, touche...the police are not liable as such for my individual safety.
And of course I take some care to make sure I don't walk in the middle of
freeways and to make sure I don't walk down dark alleys with 20 dollar
bills hanging out of my pockets.
On the other hand, as a citizen, one long-reaching method of defending my
safety may be to take measures (lobby my legislature) to make sure it's
harder for people (law abiding or otherwise) to get and carry guns, just
as I might lobby my representatives to work to make sure cars and homes
are built to certain safety standards. Since no amount of personal
guardedness can make me utterly safe or invincible, it makes sense to
attack the problem of my safety within society from both ends; being
responsible for myself, while also encouraging society to keep others
responsible as well.
There's a line of personal freedoms that I don't want social control to
cross, of course, but I think there's some natural flexibility about where
that line can be; it depends a lot on the general temperament of the body
politic.
> Hey, i'm not saying you're wrong here. My take on
> improving the human condition is to start with the
> human before you start on the machinations we've
> constructed to organize humanity.
Actually, I think one of the genius realizations of the American founding
fathers is that they *don't* attempt to improve the human. They take the
flaws of the human as more or less given, and work to build a
government and society in which competing flaws will tend to check
each other.
So, maybe the desire to own a firearm should be checked by the obligation
to serve in the military or local police first.
> Wanna hear what I think is next after personal responsibility? =)
Donuts for everybody!! Um, sure, what?
> The organized and the unorganized militia, it's stated
> plainly in several documents of the time. It actually
> specifies that the unorganized militia is made up of
> adult males, age 18-40 or something around that. I
> can find it later when i'm not at work.
I think that's a theoretical, rather than formal, definition. I.e., "if we
need to raise a militia, than these males are our natural candidates."
But the way I see it is, if I ain't in training, I ain't in the militia
(or national guard, or army). Doesn't mean I couldn't be drafted, of
course.
> Imperfect individuals are going to form imperfect
> societies. If you build a skyscraper too tall with
> steel that is too low in its hardness, it's going to
> collapse sooner or later. The framers knew people
> were imperfect and built a government that could flex
> and expand as times dictated. And they understood
> intimately that the human spirit cannot tolerate
> captivity- they obviously made it their first priority
> to guarantee freedom for all. With greater freedoms
> come greater responsibilities, and the whole becomes
> greater. Think back on your own career path, your
> life. It is obvious to me that taking away freedoms
> and responsibilities from the individual is a step in
> the wrong direction, and we have to accept the price
> paid or face extinction.
Funny thing is, though--to add responsibilities tends to take away
freedoms. At least, it does if one is to be held accountable for those
responsibilities. It seems to me that, by definition, with greater
freedoms come fewer structures of accountability. So one must perforce be
more responsible if one is to perform up to existing standards of
behaviors---but by the same token, removing accountability in order to
increase freedom means that, by and large, people will tend to be come
less responsible en masse. Unless human nature has improved without
telling me, anyway.
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
