Hello everyone
>From: "Jonathan B. Marder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: MD True Libertarians Please Stand Up
>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:33:25 +0300
>
>Hi Libertarians,
>
>Thanks to those who explained that the "right to bear arms" guaranteed by
>the
>U.S. Constitution is supposed to allow the individual to defend himself
>against the Government.
>
>May I ask a few simple questions, because I may have understood something:
>
>1. Does the US Constitution allow individuals to actually USE arms in
>opposing
>the Government?
Hi Jonathan
The first ten Amendments to our US Constitution were ratified in 1791 and
came to be known as our Bill of Rights. Amendment II:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Your question is a difficult one and open to interpretation even 200 years
after ratification. In 1999 a Florida judge ruled that Amendment II can
indeed be construed to include the right of individuals to bear arms and not
only a collective "people." The term "militia" seems dated by conventional
standards of today but I think that is the key to Amendment II (Mark Twain
made light of his escapades in a militia organized prior to the outbreak of
the Civil War). The founding fathers invisioned a participatory state based
on the intermingled values of two seemingly opposed ideals, security and
freedom (European vs Native American) or put another way, static quality and
Dynamic Quality. Both are needed and two hundred years ago the founding
fathers must have felt the militia best represented both qualities. That is
simply not true any longer due to the complexity of our nation.
So the question quite naturally arises: why should ordinary citizens of
today continue to have the right to belong to a "well-regulated militia" and
"to keep and bear arms"? The answer goes straight to the heart of every
right we possess. It is better to be free.
>
>2. How does US law view an individual or organization that advocates use of
>arms to oppose the Goverment?
We can look at this question as more evidence of the Dynamic/static nature
of what the founding fathers envisioned. By definition the Constitution
implies a static framework of government but built into it is a Dynamic
aspect that defies explanation. Robert Pirsig mentioned John Brown, who was
hanged for treason, and the ideals that he believed in but it would seem to
me the MOQ would advocate non-violent means of opposing the Government if
freedom becomes usurped.
>
>3. Bonus question: What's the definition of sedition?
I am not sure how this question applies...
Thank you
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
