--- "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snipsnipsnip
Marvin, why are we still expending energy on the
somantics of grammar and what we figure the framers
were thinking at the time when almost all of the
writings and speeches of the men themselves expressed
their attitudes so clearly?
>
> 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. (((
>
That is precisely my point. As I expressed before,
the body politic presently doesn't seem so much
concerned with the issues as with translating whatever
comes up as a problem for the week into legislation,
and having a general desire to not be bothered with
responsibility in their lives unless absolutely
necessary. When I see commercials trying to impress
upon people that they need to keep track of their
children, that's a big warning sign to me.
> > 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.
>
Starship troopers, anyone? Marvin, you're gonna get
beat on worse than I have. =)
> > Wanna hear what I think is next after personal
> responsibility? =)
>
> Donuts for everybody!! Um, sure, what?
>
mmmm, dooooo nutsssss.
My mental swap file has expanded to take all available
space, and many of my more important files are
fragmented. I'll get back to you on that. ;)
> > 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.
>
I found it, "The militia of the United States
consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of
age..." -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.
(see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/)
dean
continued..
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
