[MA-SOC] [OT] Re: V Tech Tragic Event this morning (stillgoingand going)

B Smith ifuritaoni at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 21 10:45:46 EDT 2007



Sounds like what the country needed at the time was
not a second amendment but pest control....forget the
armed force, we need to call the Orkin  man!

>From what Ralph was saying was not that we need an
armed militia but a distribute more gov't subsidized
Black Flag in Wal-Mart.  

B Smith, firm believer that the only good vermin is a
dead one (we should put that in the constitution and
see how the pols interpret it)....in the meantime
firmly believes that it our god-given fundamentally
constitutional right to get drunk and use shotguns (if
there are no assault weapons handy) to kill all mice,
rats, and our best friends while duck hunting (at
least the ducks will rest easy they are
constitutionally protected, what the best friends like
won't matter after the shooting starts...).   

--- Ralph Young <ralphyoung at optonline.net> wrote:

> I was going to sit this one out entirely, in part
> because I don't really 
> think I know the best solution.  But here is
> something Dan said that sort of 
> roped me in, as it is a topic I have some history
> with:
> <quote.>
> Actually the original spirit of the Constitutionl
> right to bear arms was to 
> help field a militia during times of war.  The
> purpose of a militia was to 
> act as a local first response army, until the
> national army could be rousted 
> and fielded.  Nowadays, the use of a militia is very
> limited, with local 
> police, national guard (the modern militia), FBI,
> NSA, and the other 
> alphabets.
> </endquote>
> This is mostly true, but not exactly.  The Second
> Amendment is expressly 
> limited to application to application of the
> individual states to form 
> "regulated militias."   Those militia weren't
> exactly meant to be fielded in 
> anything as big and formal as a "war."  What exactly
> was meant is subject to 
> debate.
> When the 2nd Am. was written the newborn USA was
> less a single country than 
> a federation of allied states agreeing to riff off
> of a single Constitution. 
> Furthermore, each of these states were themselves
> rather disorganized 
> compared to today, and many of them still qualified
> as untamed frontiers 
> with a lot of disgruntled aboriginals pissed off
> about the recently arrived 
> white people kicking them out of their lands.
> What the Founding Fathers *probably* intended by the
> 2d Am boiled down to 
> three objectives:
> 1) White folk should have the means to shoot pesky
> Indians themselves 
> without having to wait  for "the authorities" to
> arrive and shoot them 
> instead;
> 2) Individual states should be able to organize
> their white folk to more 
> effectively shoot larger numbers of pesky Indians
> (who sometimes organized 
> themselves to kill larger numbers of white folks)
> without having to clear it 
> with the federal government; and
> 3) In the case that the federal government should
> get too annoying to the 
> individual states, as the British government
> recently had, they could train 
> these amateur Indian-killers to kill the
> professional soldiers of the 
> federal government instead (which is pretty much
> exactly what the Founding 
> Fathers had done against the British government).
> Now, what the 2d Am means today is a huge debate I
> don't claim to have the 
> answer to.  Most of the original reasons for the
> amendment have either faded 
> away or morphed into different problems, depending
> on how you choose to look 
> at them.  I haven't been attacked by an Indian
> recently (though one still 
> owes me money!), and the American Civil War made
> clear that we didn't have 
> the same feelings about states fielding militia
> against the federal 
> government that we had had back in Thomas
> Jefferson's days.
> Personally, I don't have a gun, don't particularly
> want one, am not fond of 
> having them in my general vicinity even when they
> aren't pointed directly at 
> me (but moreso when they are), and believe that as a
> general principal, when 
> you have a tool handy that makes it possible to end
> lives with less physical 
> effort and mental forethought than the job would
> take otherwise, it is 
> pretty much inevitable that more lives are going to
> be ended with less 
> physical effort and mental forethought.  Even with
> training.  And background 
> checks.  And licenses.
> The Vice President of the United States had those
> things and he still ended 
> up shooting a guy in the face.
> On the other hand, if I had doubts before, the last
> seven years have 
> convinced me that the overwhelming power of the
> federal government cannot be 
> trusted to consistently operate in the best
> interests of the individual 
> citizens, the seperate states they live in, or
> indeed anyone who is not a 
> Halliburton executive.
> So, I am officially undecided about gun control
> issues. 
> _______________________________________________
> ma-nyc-soc mailing list
> ma-nyc-soc at lists.baka.org
> http://lists.baka.org/mailman/listinfo/ma-nyc-soc

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the ma-nyc-soc mailing list