Contest: Predict the Next Obnoxious Persona
ZeroEffort
Bill has stepped deep into it now.
The trail of blood leading right to his heart and mind.
Methodically, like Mr. Oliver, we shall examine the evidence.
In article <519hc1$i...@baldhead.cs.unc.edu>
oli...@cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) writes:
>That is, of course, one of the problems with such race-
>or gender-based insults. Many people do consider
>them to be generally true and use such "jokes" and
>slights to promulgate and expand racial stereotypes.
I have separated Mr. Oliver's next three sentences so that we may examine
them closer. read them carefully and see if you notice anything
suspicious.
1] Jews are not generally materialistic crooks,
though some are.
2] African-Americans are not generally drug-dealing thugs,
though some are.
3] "White boys" are not generally the incompetents
you make them to be, though some are.
[now speaking to the defendant]
Notice the different way you describe these three groups.
In #3, "White Boys" is in quotes. indicating that either there is
something special about them... or perhaps that they shouldn't be referred
to as a group at all. That they are above grouping or labeling. Your
references to "Jews" and "African-Americans" don't get such special
treatment.
Also notice how the generalizations are handled. In 1 & 2 the groups are
directly linked to *your* generalization of them. However, in # 3, the
generalization is merely *alledged* by Chris. AND the "White Boys" are
seperated from the generalization by the definite article "the". "the
incompetents you make them to be". these subtle unconscious clues provide
certain evidence of your true feelings.
Mr. Oliver takes Chris to task:
>You may have *meant* it as more of a gender-based
>rather than racial slur, but the criticisms you have
>received have dealt with both aspects. Because offense
>has been taken on both accounts, you are, by definition,
>guilty of giving offense on both accounts. Once again,
>by definition, your only reasonable recourse is to
>recognize your insensitivity, apologize, and withdraw
>the remark.
i feel your pain... i really do...
Chris, please put him out of his misery!
Apologize and Repent!
you have obviously shaken this man's self confidence and sense of
security.
>You may feel that making racial slurs about
>your own race is good and proper, but that makes
>it no less a racial slur. A person offended by racial
>slurs is often offended by the slur, not just by who
>says it. A rule that it is OK to encourage racist or
>sexist ideas as long as you are a member of that race
>or gender may be part of an individual set of ethics,
>but I don't believe it is as universal as you imply.
my my... you are soooo sensitive.
i'll bet you do volunteer work, huh?
someone like you, who is so empathic
must be out there helping *everyone*.
how you manage to squeeze in a round of golf... amazing!
-Zero... CourtAdjourned
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Join N.O.C.A.S.H. or P.L.U.S.
(or at least stop just sitting there doing *nothing*)
This is a SharePost(tm) article. Feel free to distribute it. If you have
found these words to be enjoyable or of any use whatsoever, please send
your largest affordable contribution ($1-$1000+) promoting creativity to:
SharePost(tm) Starving Artist # MLR2561 Box 426 Lewiston NY 14092 USA
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
ZeroEffort
In article <51as95$k...@fountain.mindlink.net>, a...@peavine.com (Jensen)
writes:
>>In #3, "White Boys" is in quotes. indicating that either there is
>>something special about them... or perhaps that they shouldn't
>>be referred to as a group at all.
>
>Actually, he was quoting.
did Chris say that "White Boys" were generally incompetent?
humph... i thought she joked that they weren't such good dancers.
-ZeroFindsItHardToReadBetweenTheLinesWhen...
ThereIsSoMuchFranticScribbling
FOR jen ONLY!!!:
hey...jen... you're breaking my momentum here... giving Dr. Oliver the
benefit of the doubt. you're playing much too fair. that's not allowed
when you're doing a parody of subtle racist bigotry. shush.
M Barnard
In article <51cabh$a...@fountain.mindlink.net>, a...@peavine.com (Jensen) wrote:
>(besides, billo anwered my anthrax question, he writes really cool posts
about
>disease and dead people and, you have to agree, he can compose one hell of an
>argument)
It's true, it's true. Bill is very knowledgeable and helpful in his areas of
expertise. He's definitely a valuable member of MW, even if we disagree on a
few unnamed subjects.
M (Guns don't protect rights. People protect rights.)
bar...@io.org - http://www.io.org/~barnard/web/barnard.htm -
Kilgore Trout was near.
The Last Real Marlboro Man
bar...@ican.net (M Barnard) wrote:
>M (Guns don't protect rights. People protect rights.)
Don't even start.
- Wayne (Ma, git my gun!)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hermit hoar, in solemn cell,
Wearing out life's evening grey;
Strike thy bosom sage! and tell
What is bliss and which the way?
Thus I spoke, and speaking sighed
Scarce repressed the startling tear,
When the hoary sage replied
"Come my lad and drink some beer". - Dr. Samuel Johnson
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Lutz (wl...@ix.netcom.com) http://www.netcom.com/~wlutz
Stan (The Man)
>
> jen
> (besides, billo anwered my anthrax question, he writes really cool posts about
> disease and dead people and, you have to agree, he can compose one hell of an
> argument)
Wouldn't that be DE-compose?
Stan
ZeroEffort
>jen
>(besides, billo anwered my anthrax question,
>he writes really cool posts about disease and dead people
that's because he's republican,
he's got an inside track
>and, you have to agree,
>he can compose one hell
>of an argument)
albeit a losing one...
-ZeroPasLeMoinsDeMonde
JMingo
STOP! STOP! The contest's over.
As one of the judges, let me tell you that it's just too darned hard to
pick. All of you contestants keep topping the others in obnoxiosity. How
about if we just name ALL of you The Next Obnoxious Personae?
Jack (everybody--even you white boys!--invited to the dance afterward)
Mingo
ZeroEffort
In article <51eai1$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, jmi...@aol.com (JMingo)
writes:
>Jack (everybody--even you white boys!--invited to the dance afterward)
>Mingo
hey... i'm personally offended by your use of the term white boys, i'm not
exactly white (i'm Italian) but i'm often mistaken for a white guy. and
your inference that i'm incompetent as a human being through that subtle
remark about "being invited to the dance" has deeply psychologically
crippled me. please admit your transgression, retract it and apologize to
all the white folk you have insulted and denigraded with your careless
parenthetical remark.
in fact, i think it appropriate that you call a press conference to
announce your atonement... donating all your past and future earnings to
SAP-WOSP (Save All the Poor White Oppressed Supremasist People).
----------
JaMingo! JaMingo! do i win? do i win? did i super-obnoxiate myself? did i
top all the other so called 'contenders'?
i know... i know... hands off the keyboard and pull down my pants. i
forgot...
-Zero"SearchingForLightInTheDarknessOfInsanity" - Elvis Costello
pathological sig to follow:
ell...@pobox.com
I, too am one of the anonymous judgesses (is that a new word or what?).
Nope, sorry, Peter, you didn't win.
Who did?
I'm not telling... (snickers galore...)
Ellie :D
--
Ellie Kuykendall
Freelance Writer, Editor & Researcher
Also Associate Editor for U.S. of:
Pure Fiction: best selling novels and how to write them...
WEB: http://www.purefiction.com
ZeroEffort
In article <51a7j0$l...@seminole.gate.net>, dci...@gate.net (D. Citron)
writes:
>I think we have found the Next Obnoxious Persona: Chris!
yeah, and you're Crusty the Clown...
>Like I said, you have a future in the national news media. You may want
>to see my Media Bias page, http://www.univox.com/writer/mediabias.html.
like the wealthy right-wing oil companies and conservatives haven't
smartened up and bought up all the media in the last thrirty years. like
there's really a free press these days. how many cities have more than
one newspaper anymore?
all you have to do is just remember how quiet, compliant and obedient the
national press was during the gulf war. it was so comfortingly sterile
wasn't it? seemed like thousands of innocent civilians and children never
had their faces blown off... reject the brainwash. you twit.
>"Now that the Democrats have, on day one of their convention, come out
>against dying in a plane crash, against falling off horses, and against
>getting shot in the head, they feel that Clinton's victory is assured.
>If only they can convince voters that Bob Dole is for all these hazards!"
That should be easy enough, just check his Senate voting record:
Consumer Safety. Health Care. Gun Control.
-ZeroJustDOLEingOutTheJustice
Hound of Cullen
In article <51m6b8$r...@baldhead.cs.unc.edu>, oli...@cs.unc.edu (Bill
Oliver) wrote:
:In article <51cgnv$d...@news1.io.org>, M Barnard <bar...@ican.net> wrote:
:>In article <51cabh$a...@fountain.mindlink.net>, a...@peavine.com (Jensen) wrote:
:>
:>It's true, it's true. Bill is very knowledgeable and helpful in his areas of
:>expertise. He's definitely a valuable member of MW, even if we disagree on a
:>few unnamed subjects.
:>
:>M (Guns don't protect rights. People protect rights.)
:>
:
:Thank you.
:
:I find it unfortunate, however, that folk in this group seem much more
:concerned with limiting rights than preserving them. Canada, of course,
:does not repect second amendment rights, and I am not surprised that
:you do not, either.
:
:You mention that people protect rights. Are you as voluble in criticizing
:the restrictions of speech rights in Canada as you are in the respect
:for second amendment rights in the US?
:
:billo
And here in our own back yard, we have Robert Bork (former nominee to the
US supreme court) writing a book strongly in favor of censorship. Here's
a quote from the AP release (which I found at www.boston.com/globe where I
used their search engine):
He [Bork] calls for a constitutional amendment allowing
the House and Senate to overturn Supreme Court decisions
by majority vote in each house. That would represent a
sharp departure from the current constitutional balance
that gives each of three branches of government - the courts,
Congress and the presidency - equal power.
Bork acknowledged that even many conservatives - including
GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole - do not share his advocacy
of censorship. But he said nothing less is required to curb ``the
obscene prose and pictures available.''
At least the man didn't make it onto the Supreme court.
Hound
--
Monster Grendel's tastes are plainish
Breakfast? Just a couple Danish
Bill Oliver
JMingo
In article <51m6b8$r...@baldhead.cs.unc.edu>, oli...@cs.unc.edu is in need
of his quarterly gun control argument:
>I find it unfortunate, however, that folk in this group seem much more
>concerned with limiting rights than preserving them.
Another potential epiphany, coming right up!
Limiting "rights" is not the intention. Balancing them for maximum
reasonable freedom is.
A "right" for one person often lessens a "right" of another. If you
exercise your "right" to use a leafblower at 4 AM, you've lessened my
right to sleep at that hour. If you exercise your "right" to slash
randomly with a knife, you interfere with my right to stand near you. And
if you preserve the "right" to arm to the teeth a huge, unscreened,
self-selected population of people, you reduce the right of many others,
especially in urban areas, to live without fear....or, for that matter,
continue living at all.
"Rights" have to be negotiable when they profoundly interfere with the
common good. Yes, nobody likes that fact. But unless you want to live by
yourself on an island, young man, you'll just have to live with that
balance.
Jack (Civilization: It's a balancing act. Live with it!) Mingo
Bill Oliver
In article <51nc4b$m...@fountain.mindlink.net>, Jensen <a...@peavine.com> wrote:
>>I find it unfortunate, however, that folk in this group seem much more
>>does not repect second amendment rights, and I am not surprised that
>>you do not, either.
>>
>>You mention that people protect rights. Are you as voluble in criticizing
>>the restrictions of speech rights in Canada as you are in the respect
>>for second amendment rights in the US?
>>
>
>discussion (since I am Canadian). What are the second amendment rights? the
>right to free speech?
No, second amendment rights are those surrounding the right to bear
arms. I was actually trying to deflect the conversation away from
gun control, since we recently went through that ad nauseum. However,
since M decided to bring it up, I feel (and will always feel)
obligated to respond. My statement, as so commonly happens,
shows poor editing, primarily because I write this using a rather
spotty connection. It should have read :
"You mention that people protect rights. Are you as voluble in criticizing
the restrictions of speech rights in Canada as you are in criticizing the
repect for second amendment rights in the US?"
In any case, the free speech amendment is the first.
>
>I'm really torn on some of the issues that have arisen in Canada with respect
>to free speech.
>
>In the case of Ernst Zundel and Jim Keegstra, I fully supported the decisions
>that were made against them.
>
>On the other side of the coin, a local bookstore in Vancouver, Little Sisters,
>is constantly under harrassment from Canada Customs for import "pornography."
> Little Sisters is a bookstore with that specialises
>in homosexual literature ...
>
>
>It's difficult for me to say that I support free speech in some areas but not
>in others, but that's how it is. The individual cases do present differences
>in their conformity to Canadian culture. Mssr. Zundel and Keegstra were not
>acting within acceptable limits of our culture. In the case of Little
>Sisters, the fact that the very books which are being seized are available
>elsewhere, incidates to me that they are well within the acceptable limits of
>our culture.
>
There are two easy approaches in disagreement with your position.
One does not presuppose inalienable rights, the other does.
First, let's punt the question of inalienable rights in general,
and just assume that free exchange of ideas is better than
suppression in general, and that one should be relatively free to agitate
and petition for changes in society when society could be
improved. It is not necessary to assume any other basic
rights -- not even that of democracy or representation.
So. What if your culture is *wrong*? One of the
purposes of freedom of speech is to allow those who disagree with
common wisdom to express that disagreement in hopes of changing
it. Your assumption is that the common cultural wisdom is always
right, and thus speech which disagrees with it should be suppressed.
Thus, it was *right* for Galileo to be persecuted, because his
astronomical conclusions were fundamentally at odds with the "acceptible"
limits of his culture.
In a culture in which certain kinds of speech are "rightly" suppressed
because they are commonly found distasteful, then certain forms
of speech which could lead to important societal change are also
suppressed. Sometimes a society *needs* to be shocked, and that
is the value of shocking speech -- from Swift to Voltair to deSade
to Lenny Bruce to George Carlin. It is that kind of shock, when
done well, that makes us question some basic assumptions. A government
which suppressed "hate speech" could easily categorize "A Modest
Proposal" exactly that.
I consider the argument based on the danger of hate speech vacuous,
because I have a Darwinistic approach to ideas. Those who use
shocking speech clumsily and to no purpose find themselves ignored.
Those who advocate clearly incorrect concepts find themselves
peripheralized. In fact, allowing fanatics to express themselves
freely is probably the *best* way of destroying them. They quickly
show themselves to be idiots. Let one of these holocaust denial
types rant on long enough and it becomes impossible to take him or
her seriously. The worst thing that happened to the white supremacist/militia
movement in the US was that some folk gave them national coverage.
The great intellectual leaders of the white separatist movement were
given a microphone and allowed to talk to the nation. They went
directly from being a somewhat interesting movement to being the
butt of the Jay Leno monologue. They are their own worst enemies;
they have no power other than what we give them.
But the very act of suppressing them *gives* them power. It states
that their ideas have enough merit to be taken seriously, and to
be dangerous. Unfortunately, the very act of suppression then
acts against exposure because one in the underground can always claim
that there is more supporting evidence but that it is *also* being
suppressed. The very suppression of the claim is supports the idea
that evidence for the claim also exists but is equally kept from
public view.
So, if one ignores the concept of inalienable rights, and considers
freedom of speech merely a tool in securing a better society,
limiting that tool on the basis of common wisdom and cultural
acceptance not only blunts the tool, but is conceivably
actually self-defeating.
Second, let's move on to the idea of inalienable rights. I personally
swallow the idea that rights are given to each person by his or
her Creator. Those rights cannot be "given" or "taken away" by
a government; they can only be recognized or suppressed. Thus,
any argument from practicality is essentially irrelevant to me.
Free speech is not merely a tool for social change. It is a sacred
right in and of itself. That most arguments from practicality are
further almost always *wrong* is simply a comfort. Arguments
from the basic assumption of the existence of inalienable rights
are, by definition, purely ideologic.
From the position of inalienable rights, of which the right to
free speech is one, whether or not "hate speech" is dangerous
is irrelevant. The cost of suppression is death of individual
liberty and the strangulation of the spirit. If there is a
"cost" to allowing hate speech, it is a cost that I gladly pay.
That the "cost" is actually trivial, and the benefit great is
merely convenient.
From a personal perspective, I find most calls for the suppression
of speech self-serving and hypocritical. Pro-lifers try to make
it illegal for a physician to give patients medical advice; pro-choicers
try to make it illegal for pro-lifers to express protest. To some
everything is a sexual slur. To others, everything is
a racial slur. To some, a bikini is pornographic. To others,
heterosexual intercourse is merely "erotic", but only if done
in a mainstream manner and minimal accoutrements. Anything else
is to be suppressed.
"Hate speech" boils down to "something I don't like."
There is *no* way to define or enforce such limitations in an
equitable and reasonable manner. That, alone, should be proof
enough that is should not even be attempted.
billo
Bill Oliver
Well, Jack, I'm interested to see that you feel we should start up
this debate again, particularly since you were so critical of it
before. I was sorta hoping to avoid it, but hey, as long
as you are up for it, so am I.
You state, concerning second amendment rights,
" And if you preserve the "right" to arm to the teeth a huge, unscreened,
self-selected population of people, you reduce the right of many others,
especially in urban areas, to live without fear....or, for that matter,
continue living at all."
I think you certainly hit the nail on the head there. It's the classic
fear of the rabble. You echo the sentiments of the 16th-century
monarchist writer Jean Bodin in his distaste for the mob. As he
writes:
Another and the most usual way to prevent sedition, is to
take away the subject's arms: howbeit, that the Princes of
Italy, and of the East cannot endure that they shall at all
have arms; as do the people of the North and West... [Wise is
the Turkish practice] not in only punishing with all severity
the seditious and mutinous people, but also by forbidding
them to bear arms...
Indeed, there is nothing so frightening to the anti-democratic mind
as the idea of the "huge, unscreened, self-selected" masses having
power. And it's not just limited to second amendment rights.
The *very same* principle applies to all the others. As Bodin
continues, aside from private ownership of arms, the
other great danger to society is " the immoderate liberty of
speech given to orators, who direct and guide the people's hearts
and minds according to their own pleasure."
Freedom, like all things to the anti-democratic mind, should
be given only sparingly to those who will use it wisely, and the best
agency to dispense such largesse is, of course, the state.
And why should we be so quick to reign in this "huge, unscreened,
self-selected" rabble? Because you *fear* them. You state your
right to live without *fear* of your neighbor. They make you
uncomfortable.
Now, if one were to actually look at the data, as we all know,
the danger of liberty is hugely overstated by those who wish to
limit it. After all, such fear-mongering is the best tool to
get free citizens to voluntarily abrogate their rights. The current
anti-terrorism bills demonstrate this nicely. The fear of
the corrosion of traditional values makes freedom of speech
"negotiable," leading to the CDA.
Consider the right to carry law in Florida. The anti-liberty
lobby shouted from the rooftops that allowing the rabble to
carry weapons would lead to massive increases in violence.
The newspaper editorials stated that there would be gunfights
at every fender-bender. To the disappointment to the
anti-liberty folk, this, of course, did not happen.
If one were to actually look at the numbers and base one's position
on *actual* danger and *real* threat rather than simply distaste
for the masses, one would have a rather different view. As an
advocate of safety, for instance, one would probably be a
proponent of liberal weapon carry laws. After all,
states with right to carry laws have a 21% lower overall
violent crime rate, a 27% lower firearm violent crime rate,
a 28% lower homicide rate, a 33% lower firearm homicide rate,
a 3% lower rape rate, a 33% lower robbery rate,
a 35% lower firearm robbery rate, a 15% lower aggravated
assault rate and an 18% lower firearm aggravated assault
rate than other states.
But the data, as has been well demonstrated before, is fundamentally
unimportant to the anti-rights position. The news from Florida
is met with dismay, not with pleasure that a right need *not*
be limited. Instead, the anti-liberty advocates look for
new fears to harvest and to call for new "compromise" to
thwart exaggerated or non-existent threats. There are
no sacred rights, hence your use of quotes. There is no freedom
that isn't negotiable, and no liberty so sacred that it cannot be
ritually dismembered on the altar of middle-class angst.
>"Rights" have to be negotiable when they profoundly interfere with the
>common good. Yes, nobody likes that fact. But unless you want to live by
>yourself on an island, young man, you'll just have to live with that
>balance.
Rights have to be respected and protected, even when they
interfere with your convenience and even when they make you
uncomfortable. Yes, nobody likes that fact. But unless you want
to live in a prison, my child, you'll just have to stop
trying to force your neighbors to be slaves to your fear.
billo
Bill Oliver
In article <zisbo-17099...@stdwebmaster.bbn.com>,
Hound of Cullen <zi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>And here in our own back yard, we have Robert Bork (former nominee to the
>...At least the man didn't make it onto the Supreme court.
>
Oh dear me, you seem to have missed Jack's epiphany as well.
Don't you understand? In a civilized country *all* so-called
"rights" are negotiable when they threaten the common good.
What could be more important to the common good than stopping
the spreading "rot" of the "decadence" that "permeates most
of American culture?" If there is anything that should
cause us real fear, it is the loss of values which made us
great, and the uncensored free expression of popular culture is one of
the worst causes, no? Certainly *no* right is so important
that we can't make a few "compromises" to calm our right
to live without such fears.
Unless you want to live on an island, young man, you will have
to learn to do without that obsession you have with freedom of
speech.
billo
Jerry Kindall
Well, I can't believe I'm going to post on the gun control debate, but
here goes. Rather than support the argument with statistics or readings
of the Constitution, I will attempt to use logic, since to me, this
argument is the most persuasive.
The argument "Guns hurt people, therefore we should ban (or limit access
to) guns" seems to me to be too simplistic. It fails to take into account
the fact that laws are ineffective against criminals because, by
definition, criminals do not let laws stand in the way of whatever it is
they want to do. If they did, they wouldn't be criminals, but rather
law-abiding citizens.
So you have two possible scenarios: either everyone can have guns, or you
ban guns and only criminals and police can have guns. (Let's ignore the
fact that someone who has a gun but has no intention of committing a
violent crime with it is defined to be a criminal by an anti-gun law.
Before the law was passed he was no criminal. And let's ignore the fact
that, even if the criminals were somehow disarmed, many people would not
be entirely comfortable with the idea of only police being armed. With
nothing to keep them in check, citizens would be powerless to stop police
corruption.)
With an unarmed populace, since there are not and never can be enough
police to stop every crime, criminals will feel free to terrorize the
citizenry. There is little chance they will be caught by the police.
However, if the populace is permitted to own weapons of their own, any
criminal will think twice.
You don't even have to own a gun yourself to benefit from the deterrent
effect. The mere fact that any potential victim COULD own one is a
deterrent to crime. The higher the possibility that a random person could
be carrying a gun, the greater the deterrent to the criminal. The
deterrent is even greater when it is impossible to tell who might be
carrying a gun. That is, the ability to carry concealed weapons is a more
effective deterrent to crime. If all gun-owners must carry their weapons
in plain sight, then a criminal can select an unarmed victim. (Remember,
since criminals break laws, the criminals themselves feel no obligation to
carry their weapons in plain sight! The intent of the law is, as always,
subverted by the fact that criminals won't obey it.)
Naturally, the deterrent is even more effective when people not only are
permitted to carry guns, but are trained to use them properly.
Those in favor of gun control often quote statistics indicating that
people are more likely to be shot with their own weapons than to shoot an
intruder with one, or that having a weapon in the house increases the
likelihood of injury to oneself in an altercation. These statistics are
irrelevant, because a criminal isn't thinking about the risk to YOU.
That, too, should be self-evident. A criminal is thinking about the risk
to HIMSELF. Attacking a person who is carrying a gun is self-evidently
more dangerous TO THE CRIMINAL than attacking a person who is not carrying
a gun. It is in the criminal's self-interest to avoid such attacks.
This is how deterrence WORKS. It turns the tables on your opponent by
engaging his desire to keep breathing. A threat against one's life is
something even the most dim-witted crack-head can understand. "If I do
this, I might die." Deterrence has worked to keep nuclear war from
breaking out, and it has worked -- and will continue working, if we'll
stop screwing around with it -- to prevent violent crime.
An invasion by a hostile foreign country is similarly deterred by an armed
populace. As is terrorism. As is possible abuse of power by the police.
A populace which is equipped to defend itself against threats becomes a
less attractive target, and the populace as a whole fears these threats
less. Far from increasing tension, the right to protect one's self and
one's property actually helps reduce it.
The deterrent effect is one reason why states like Florida, which give
citizens liberal (in a literal, not political sense) rights to bear arms,
do not explode with incidents of people shooting each other at
fender-benders. If you're armed, then there's a good possibility that the
other guy is, too -- and if you don't kill your target with the first
shot, he might just shoot back. (And let's not forget the possibly-armed
bystanders who just saw you pull a gun without provocation.)
Another reason states like Florida do not see an increase in
heat-of-the-moment violent crimes is that the majority of ordinary
citizens are actually quite trustworthy. People realize that pulling a
gun is a serious measure and a last resort -- and they are fully aware of
the serious penalties for using a gun when such force is not called for.
The people you have to worry about are the people without such common
sense, who think it is acceptable to shoot someone if you want his shoes.
Guess what: these people already have guns, and passing a law against guns
still won't stop them from having them.
The government tells us, "You lack the maturity required to carry a
weapon. You lack the common sense to know when to use it. In fact, no
one has the the required level of maturity and common sense. No one, that
is, except us!" I would hope that by now we would be wary when the
government, with all its failed programs, budget overruns, corruption, and
scandals, tells us that we should just bend over and trust Uncle Sam not
to put the screws to us. For some reason Uncle Sam is surprised that we
don't try to pick up the soap anymore when he's around.
The framers of the Constitution wrote the Second Amendment because they
understood and accepted the logic of deterrence. They would, I think, be
amazed that anyone could consider it other than intuitively obvious.
If people believe that the Second Amendment is in error, or is subject to
interpretation, there are channels available to amend the Constitution.
Passing laws which erode the Bill of Rights to curry public favor is the
lazy way out, and it's one reason why people have so little respect for
politicians. If the great majority of the people in this country believe
that guns are bad and should be banned, then it should be a simple matter
to eliminate the Second Amendment entirely, and the problem would be
solved.
Let me pose just a few hypothetical questions. Do laws against the sale
and possession of drugs stop people from selling and using drugs? Do laws
against prostitution stop people from buying the services of call girls?
Do laws against sodomy stop gay men from having sex? Do laws against
dumping pollutants into the ocean stop companies from polluting the water
supply? Do laws against discriminatory hiring practices stop people from
hiring using whatever criteria they desire? Do laws against "sweat shops"
stop companies from manufacturing products in other countries where such
practices are legal? Do laws against hate speech stop people from
thinking hateful thoughts? Do laws against violent crimes stop people
from killing, raping, and stealing?
So what makes you think that laws against carrying guns will stop
criminals from owning guns?
--
Jerry Kindall <kin...@manual.com>
Manual Labor <http://www.manual.com/>
Technical Writing -- Internet & WWW Consulting -- We Wrote the Book!
Our satisfied customers include id Software, ResNova Software, Scantron
Quality Computers, and HouseMaster. Find out what we can do for you!
Jenna C. Thomas-McKie
>"Rights" have to be negotiable when they profoundly interfere with the
>common good. Yes, nobody likes that fact.
Good point, Jack. And in an effort to prevent drunk driving (which I think
everyone agrees profoundly interferes with the common good), I suggest we ban
all books that mention alcoholic drinks.
--
Jenna C. Thomas-McKie
jth...@ac.edu
JMingo
In article <51rr8e$9...@baldhead.cs.unc.edu>, oli...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>Well, Jack, I'm interested to see that you feel we should start up
>[followed by 3,456 lines or so by dead-earnest prose]
Sorry, Bill. Save it for your New Federalist Papers. Life's too short to
even READ this off a screen, much less consider and respond to it.
Jack (Off to do the white boys' dance with the chocolate ladies!) Mingo
Wendy Chatley Green
jth...@ac.edu (Jenna C. Thomas-McKie) wrote:
They will have to pry my copy of "Wannabe's Guide to Wine" from my
cold, dead fingers.
--
Wendy (entering into the)
Chatley (spirit of things)
Green -- wcg...@cris.com
ZeroEffort
I find myself in a very strange and bewildering position, agreeing with
Bill Oliver and disagreeing with Jerry Kindall.
The one ironically and humorously redeeming thing about all of this is...
anyone wishing to killfile this thread can do so by entering the words
"Obnoxious Persona" in their title criteria box.
First Dr. Bill. Your recent wonderful defense of the first amendment left
me breathless. However, i am thoroughly perplexed as to how you can
express it so well while being so ignorant about a simple thing such as
vulgarity. It defies all logic. It makes you such an out and out
hypocrite that i will not even spend a moment's time debating it, since
you always run and hide from my points anyway.
Now Jerry,
In article <kindall-1909...@news.sojourn.com>, kin...@manual.com
(Jerry Kindall) writes:
>Well, I can't believe I'm going to post on the gun control debate, but
>here goes. Rather than support the argument with statistics or readings
>of the Constitution, I will attempt to use logic, since to me, this
>argument is the most persuasive.
sounds good so far.
>The argument "Guns hurt people, therefore we should ban (or limit access
>to) guns" seems to me to be too simplistic. It fails to take into
account
>the fact that laws are ineffective against criminals because, by
>definition, criminals do not let laws stand in the way of whatever it is
>they want to do. If they did, they wouldn't be criminals, but rather
>law-abiding citizens.
It seems to me that one could apply the same logic to Stop signs and Speed
Limits. Since criminals are going to ignore them anway, what's the use?
Well, i'll tell you what the use is.... Control. Enforcing the laws is
the only way to make them effective. If you think that having laws is
useless because the people who are going to break them will ignore them,
you leave absolutely no recourse or order in which to control unacceptable
behavior. It's called Democracy. Flawed but valuable, and in my opinion,
irreplacable.
>So you have two possible scenarios: either everyone can have guns, or you
>ban guns and only criminals and police can have guns.
or only police have guns. and, using your same logic for criminals somehow
being deterred by the fact that they do not want to get harmed by
potential citizens carrying concealed weapons, why not make the punishment
for breaking the weapon's possesion law be life in prison without the
possibility for parole.
but even the above solution misses the real problem, which is: What is the
reason for crime in the first place? The US is the crime capitol of the
world, we have the most people in jail and the most crimes committed.
Why? It is our culture. The constant bait and brainwash of materialism
and wealth without the means to obtain it. that is what causes people to
turn to crime. That is the gun problem. It's not the guns, it's the
people and the society.
[....]
>And let's ignore the fact that, even if the criminals were somehow
disarmed,
>many people would not be entirely comfortable with the idea of only
police
>being armed. With nothing to keep them in check, citizens would be
>powerless to stop police corruption.)
We already are powerless to stop police corruption. Having guns doesn't
help that at all. Anyway, what do you advocate, killing corrupt cops?
If on the otherhand, by police having all the guns, you're alluding to the
government and not the street cops, again, we are powerless. Unless you
advocate giving citizens nuclear missiles and germ warfare technology.
The arming of the population offers no real protection from a tyrannical
government. Our only defense against tyranny or fascism is true Democracy
and vigorous enforcement of the Law.
When the framers drafted the 2nd ammendment, they had no way of
understanding what a military force would emerge i the future. The intent
was to protect the people from the government. That is no longer
feasable. Voting is the only recourse. And of course, Rejecting the
Brainwash of TV, Books and Newspapers and other propaganda factories.
>With an unarmed populace, since there are not and never can be enough
>police to stop every crime, criminals will feel free to terrorize the
>citizenry. There is little chance they will be caught by the police.
>However, if the populace is permitted to own weapons of their own, any
>criminal will think twice.
Eliminating the desire or need for crime is the only way to stop the
ridiculously escalating madness in our society. We need to boldy promote
creativity and invention and become a nation of progressive productive
people instead of masses of do nothing audience/sports fans living
vicariously through under acheiving Sports heros. By under acheiving i
mean that at the end of the sport season, no matter what sport it is,
nothing of value has been invented, improved or enhanced. It's all
mindless merchandising.
There... i've now successfully alienated all the sports fans out there.
Zero Readership goal fast approacheth. Don't get me wrong.
*Participating* in sports *recreationally* is fun AND healthy, but the
national spectator religion it has become is a tragic waste of human Time,
Energy and Liberty.
This will really get you to dislike me. During football season, every
sunday, my mind reels with amazement at the sheer number of idle humanity
seated in a circular go nowhere trance. One stadium alone holds 60,000 -
80,000 people captive. Then there's the broadcast. Pick up your local
paper. How much of it is *daily* dedicated to The Sports Pages. a third?
half? How much of it constitutes science or discoveries? None? Are we
a bunch of morons or what?
OK, let's move on to local newscasts. Same question. How much of the
local *news*casts are daily dedicated to sports? (usually broadcast
three or four times a day). If you don't see the mindless pattern here,
well... i don't know what to say.
Education. How much emphasis is put on sports in High School? In
College? It's mind numbing. How many parents get involved with their
children's education compared to the time they spend staring at them
throwing balls back and forth. Or better yet, time spent teaching them
how to perfect something as unproductive as throwing balls back and
forth.. Good exercise? Yes. Fun? Yes. Learn about competition and
teamwork? well... a little, but since the goal of sports simply to win
the 'game', which is really an empty acheivement, are we really educating
them about the value of teamwork and competition? or are we teaching them
competition masturbation?
We should be challenging our children to create, to explore, to discover,
to solve problems, make unique music, literature, art. Not perfecting a
skill like throwing a ball. waste of time. waste of humanity. the
sports religion is sucking up the minds and souls of hundreds of millions
of people with great potential.
Again, my premise is that the problem of violence and guns in this country
is not the guns themselves, but rather the surrounding moronic culture.
Have i made enough resentful enemies yet? shall i continue? Did i
mention that i have an oozie in my hands at all times? and that my
premises are protected by high tech security and a dozen off site snipers?
and that i drive around in a bullet proof popemobile?
>Those in favor of gun control often quote statistics indicating that
>people are more likely to be shot with their own weapons than to shoot an
>intruder with one, or that having a weapon in the house increases the
>likelihood of injury to oneself in an altercation. These statistics are
>irrelevant, because a criminal isn't thinking about the risk to YOU.
but YOU should think about the risks to YOU and your family and weigh them
against the remote chance that someone will want to come and kill you.
Like i said, i'm well protected.
>That, too, should be self-evident. A criminal is thinking about the risk
>to HIMSELF. Attacking a person who is carrying a gun is self-evidently
>more dangerous TO THE CRIMINAL than attacking a person who is not
carrying
>a gun. It is in the criminal's self-interest to avoid such attacks.
A dozen off site snipers of Oswaldian accuracy... 24 hour vigilance. and
i sleep in the bomb shelter. (in another part of town)
>This is how deterrence WORKS. It turns the tables on your opponent by
>engaging his desire to keep breathing. A threat against one's life is
>something even the most dim-witted crack-head can understand.
yeah, they're usually pretty reasonable people, ya know, like rowdy
drunks.
>"If I do this, I might die." Deterrence has worked to keep nuclear war
from
>breaking out, and it has worked -- and will continue working, if we'll
>stop screwing around with it -- to prevent violent crime.
>An invasion by a hostile foreign country is similarly deterred by an
armed
>populace. As is terrorism. As is possible abuse of power by the police.
>A populace which is equipped to defend itself against threats becomes a
>less attractive target, and the populace as a whole fears these threats
>less. Far from increasing tension, the right to protect one's self and
>one's property actually helps reduce it.
with all the guns they have stockpiled, each person in America could have
a full garage of oozies and ammunition within twenty minutes of some land
assault by some other obvoiusly idle nation. of course, that is if they
could go undetected by the $50 zillion dollar a year defense system we
already have in place.
>The deterrent effect is one reason why states like Florida, which give
>citizens liberal (in a literal, not political sense) rights to bear arms,
>do not explode with incidents of people shooting each other at
>fender-benders. If you're armed, then there's a good possibility that
the
>other guy is, too -- and if you don't kill your target with the first
>shot, he might just shoot back. (And let's not forget the possibly-armed
>bystanders who just saw you pull a gun without provocation.)
kinda makes you want to go out and get a big mac or stop by the post
office and try to cheer up quiet old charlie.
>The government tells us, "You lack the maturity required to carry a
>weapon. You lack the common sense to know when to use it. In fact, no
>one has the the required level of maturity and common sense.
no, i think the gun control legislation being bocked by the right wing gun
lobby is such that they don't want to inconvenience quiet old charlie to
have to wait a couple weeks before they hand him over a very dangerous
body destroying tool.
>No one, that is, except us!" I would hope that by now we would be wary
>when the government, with all its failed programs, budget overruns,
>corruption, and scandals, tells us that we should just bend over and
trust
>Uncle Sam not to put the screws to us.
got me there, but i sure don't trust quiet old charlie, at least we can
appeal to uncle sammy.
>The framers of the Constitution wrote the Second Amendment because they
>understood and accepted the logic of deterrence. They would, I think, be
>amazed that anyone could consider it other than intuitively obvious.
there are other deterrents to crime, such as jobs and productivity.
>If people believe that the Second Amendment is in error, or is subject to
>interpretation, there are channels available to amend the Constitution.
>Passing laws which erode the Bill of Rights to curry public favor is the
>lazy way out,
unselectively arming the idiots is the lazy way out
>and it's one reason why people have so little respect for
>politicians. If the great majority of the people in this country believe
>that guns are bad and should be banned, then it should be a simple matter
>to eliminate the Second Amendment entirely, and the problem would be
>solved.
guns are cool. gun control is cooler.
>Let me pose just a few hypothetical questions. Do laws against the sale
>and possession of drugs stop people from selling and using drugs? Do
laws
>against prostitution stop people from buying the services of call girls?
>Do laws against sodomy stop gay men from having sex? Do laws against
>dumping pollutants into the ocean stop companies from polluting the water
>supply? Do laws against discriminatory hiring practices stop people from
>hiring using whatever criteria they desire? Do laws against "sweat
shops"
>stop companies from manufacturing products in other countries where such
>practices are legal? Do laws against hate speech stop people from
>thinking hateful thoughts? Do laws against violent crimes stop people
>from killing, raping, and stealing?
no, so let's make killing, raping and stealing legal and see what happens.
also let's legalize pollution, discrimination, hate speech, child labor
and wife beating.
>So what makes you think that laws against carrying guns will stop
>criminals from owning guns?
much stiffer penalties. same as your argument, just a little safer for
little jimmy and little suzy.
-Zero'sRunningLate... GottaGoOverseeTheChangingOfTheGuard...
AndTestOutThatNewTriplePowerPerimeterZapperThingy...
I'mSureTheFewRemainingNeighbor'sPetsWill... SpreadTheWordTotheLocalKids
Peace, Love and Understanding has known to be fatal to supporters of it.
Peculiar isn't it?
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Instead of doing *nothing*... why not join N.O.C.A.S.H. or P.L.U.S.?
The (inner)National Organization of Creative Superior Humanoids
The Peace Love and Understanding Society
This is a SharePost(tm) article. Feel free to distribute it. If you have
found these words to be of any use whatsoever, please send the author
your largest affordable contribution ($1-$1,000+) promoting creativity to:
SharePost(tm) Starving Artist # MLR2561 Box 333 Lewiston NY 14092 USA
(c) 1996 Effortless Publishing. All Rights Reserved & Writes Reversed.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
------------------- Headers --------------------
------------------ Schmeaders ------------------
Jerry Kindall
In article <51t8ja$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zeroe...@aol.com
(ZeroEffort) wrote:
>>The argument "Guns hurt people, therefore we should ban (or limit access
>>to) guns" seems to me to be too simplistic. It fails to take into
>>account
>>the fact that laws are ineffective against criminals because, by
>>definition, criminals do not let laws stand in the way of whatever it is
>>they want to do. If they did, they wouldn't be criminals, but rather
>>law-abiding citizens.
>
>It seems to me that one could apply the same logic to Stop signs and Speed
>Limits. Since criminals are going to ignore them anway, what's the use?
Traffic regulations have definite, clear benefits to law-abiding
citizens. The benefit of gun control legislation is somewhat less clear
-- if it were clear, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Furthermore,
in cases where life is at risk (e.g. running a red light at a busy
intersection), breaking the regulations is as likely to kill or injure the
perpetrator as anyone else.
>Well, i'll tell you what the use is.... Control. Enforcing the laws is
>the only way to make them effective. If you think that having laws is
>useless because the people who are going to break them will ignore them,
>you leave absolutely no recourse or order in which to control unacceptable
>behavior. It's called Democracy. Flawed but valuable, and in my opinion,
>irreplacable.
Democracy is a form of government. It has to do with how we settle issues
(by voting, or by indirectly voting for someone to represent us). It
doesn't have anything to do with how we punish people who break laws or
how we control crime.
Certainly, laws must be enforced to be effective. As a practical matter,
however, there is a limit to how many resources we can expend enforcing
this one law. How would you propose to completely eliminate guns in
America without turning every other citizen into a police officer, without
violating citizens' right to be protected against unnecessary search and
seizure (Fourth Amendment), and without the police force becoming drunk on
its own power?
>>So you have two possible scenarios: either everyone can have guns, or you
>>ban guns and only criminals and police can have guns.
>
>or only police have guns. and, using your same logic for criminals somehow
>being deterred by the fact that they do not want to get harmed by
>potential citizens carrying concealed weapons, why not make the punishment
>for breaking the weapon's possesion law be life in prison without the
>possibility for parole.
You could do that, but you'd have to throw out the Second Amendment to do
it. Not to mention the provision against cruel and unusual punishment
(Eighth Amendment). I'd say that being sentenced to life in prison just
for owning a piece of metal which has the potential to kill someone (even
if it never has) would qualify as "cruel and unusual."
So far we've seen a need to dismantle the Second Amendment entirely, and
seriously weaken if not eliminate the Fourth and Eighth Amendments. This
may reduce crime, but it's not America. It's a police state.
>but even the above solution misses the real problem, which is: What is the
>reason for crime in the first place? The US is the crime capitol of the
>world, we have the most people in jail and the most crimes committed.
>Why? It is our culture. The constant bait and brainwash of materialism
>and wealth without the means to obtain it. that is what causes people to
>turn to crime. That is the gun problem. It's not the guns, it's the
>people and the society.
There's truth your assertion that the real issue is the true reason for
crime. That's the topic for another debate. Certainly this is a good
place to invest some resources. In fact, I think it is a better place to
invest resources than trying to enforce gun control laws. That way we get
to keep all our rights AND we reduce crime. Are you saying that if there
were little or no violent crime, you would have no problem with the Second
Amendment?
>[....]
>
>>And let's ignore the fact that, even if the criminals were somehow
>>disarmed,
>>many people would not be entirely comfortable with the idea of only
>>police
>>being armed. With nothing to keep them in check, citizens would be
>>powerless to stop police corruption.)
>
>We already are powerless to stop police corruption. Having guns doesn't
>help that at all. Anyway, what do you advocate, killing corrupt cops?
Not exactly. Actually, the tools we do have at our disposal -- primarily
media exposure -- tend to work rather well. I was speaking in the broader
sense, though. Clearly a national program requiring the elimination of
all guns would require a national police force, not to mention the
inspection of every single vehicle entering the country from Mexico or
Canada and the complete sealing of the border. Our border patrols can't
even keep illegal immigrants out; how are they supposed to stop guns?
(People are somewhat larger and more obvious than guns, and thus slightly
more difficult to smuggle into the country.)
>If on the otherhand, by police having all the guns, you're alluding to the
>government and not the street cops, again, we are powerless. Unless you
>advocate giving citizens nuclear missiles and germ warfare technology.
>The arming of the population offers no real protection from a tyrannical
>government. Our only defense against tyranny or fascism is true Democracy
>and vigorous enforcement of the Law.
Unfortunately, this country didn't have true democracy when it began, and
it has become less and less true as the years progressed. When was the
last time your Congressman truly represented you? This country also has a
great many laws against things which are not crimes (if a crime is defined
as something which causes injury to others) and which violate various
Constitutional provisions. Enforcing bad laws is no help.
I don't know what to say in response to the possibility that our
government might use nuclear or biological wepaons against us. Certainly
that is a possibility, and there's no really good countermeasure. Our
best bet is probably media exposure.
>When the framers drafted the 2nd ammendment, they had no way of
>understanding what a military force would emerge i the future. The intent
>was to protect the people from the government. That is no longer
>feasable. Voting is the only recourse. And of course, Rejecting the
>Brainwash of TV, Books and Newspapers and other propaganda factories.
Voting will not protect us when the people with the money to run for
office are in the game for their own reasons and not to represent the
people they're supposed to represent. Today's national elections are a
farce. Serious campaign reform is needed. Ideally I'd like to see all
campaign advertising stop. Each candidate would be entitled to an
announcement of candidacy and a statement of their platform, to be run in
newspapers. The rest of the campaign should be conducted by actually
visiting the people who will be electing you and by participating in
public debates with other candidates. That's what I'd like to see, but of
course it'll never happen, because it has no benefit to the people already
in power.
>>With an unarmed populace, since there are not and never can be enough
>>police to stop every crime, criminals will feel free to terrorize the
>>citizenry. There is little chance they will be caught by the police.
>>However, if the populace is permitted to own weapons of their own, any
>>criminal will think twice.
>
>Eliminating the desire or need for crime is the only way to stop the
>ridiculously escalating madness in our society. We need to boldy promote
>creativity and invention and become a nation of progressive productive
>people instead of masses of do nothing audience/sports fans living
>vicariously through under acheiving Sports heros. By under acheiving i
>mean that at the end of the sport season, no matter what sport it is,
>nothing of value has been invented, improved or enhanced. It's all
>mindless merchandising.
[snipped lots of comments about sports]
>We should be challenging our children to create, to explore, to discover,
>to solve problems, make unique music, literature, art. Not perfecting a
>skill like throwing a ball. waste of time. waste of humanity. the
>sports religion is sucking up the minds and souls of hundreds of millions
>of people with great potential.
I agree. Our focus on recreation and leisure has justifiably earned us a
national reputation as those "lazy Americans." Unfortunately, it's what
sells. True democracy -- people are voting with their wallets.
>Again, my premise is that the problem of violence and guns in this country
>is not the guns themselves, but rather the surrounding moronic culture.
So why did you spend half the post arguing for eliminating the guns before
you got to this point?
>Have i made enough resentful enemies yet? shall i continue? Did i
>mention that i have an oozie in my hands at all times? and that my
>premises are protected by high tech security and a dozen off site snipers?
> and that i drive around in a bullet proof popemobile?
What is the point of this, exactly? (And, by the way, it's "Uzi.")
>>Those in favor of gun control often quote statistics indicating that
>>people are more likely to be shot with their own weapons than to shoot an
>>intruder with one, or that having a weapon in the house increases the
>>likelihood of injury to oneself in an altercation. These statistics are
>>irrelevant, because a criminal isn't thinking about the risk to YOU.
>
>but YOU should think about the risks to YOU and your family and weigh them
>against the remote chance that someone will want to come and kill you.
Exactly. And if I live in a high-crime area, and I think there's a damn
good chance someone will want to come and kill me (or at the very least
break into my house carrying a gun, say to burglarize the place while I'm
asleep), then I can decide that the risks of NOT having a gun outweigh the
risks of having one. At that point I am free to purchase what I feel is
necessary for the protection of myself, my family, and my property.
>Like i said, i'm well protected.
Luckily for you, you are Constitutionally entitled to have that protection.
>>That, too, should be self-evident. A criminal is thinking about the risk
>>to HIMSELF. Attacking a person who is carrying a gun is self-evidently
>>more dangerous TO THE CRIMINAL than attacking a person who is not
>carrying a gun. It is in the criminal's self-interest to avoid such attacks.
>
>A dozen off site snipers of Oswaldian accuracy... 24 hour vigilance. and
>i sleep in the bomb shelter. (in another part of town)
So instead of you carrying the gun, you advocate having someone else carry
the gun? I'm still not getting your point. Other than that, yes, if you
decide that's what you want to do, then you are entitled to hire the dozen
snipers. Of course, if you take away all the guns, I doubt the police
will be able to spare a dozen officers to protect every family in a
dangerous area.
>>This is how deterrence WORKS. It turns the tables on your opponent by
>>engaging his desire to keep breathing. A threat against one's life is
>>something even the most dim-witted crack-head can understand.
>
>yeah, they're usually pretty reasonable people, ya know, like rowdy
>drunks.
Most rowdy drunks will sober up quickly at the sight of a gun.
>>"If I do this, I might die." Deterrence has worked to keep nuclear war
>from
>>breaking out, and it has worked -- and will continue working, if we'll
>>stop screwing around with it -- to prevent violent crime.
>
>>An invasion by a hostile foreign country is similarly deterred by an
>armed
>>populace. As is terrorism. As is possible abuse of power by the police.
>
>>A populace which is equipped to defend itself against threats becomes a
>>less attractive target, and the populace as a whole fears these threats
>>less. Far from increasing tension, the right to protect one's self and
>>one's property actually helps reduce it.
>
>with all the guns they have stockpiled, each person in America could have
>a full garage of oozies and ammunition within twenty minutes of some land
>assault by some other obvoiusly idle nation. of course, that is if they
>could go undetected by the $50 zillion dollar a year defense system we
>already have in place.
This is true enough. Perhaps in these days of remote-control war, an
armed populace is less of a deterrent to an invasion than it was in the
past. Still, people with experience in handling weapons will make better
soldiers with less training in the event that they are ever needed.
>>The deterrent effect is one reason why states like Florida, which give
>>citizens liberal (in a literal, not political sense) rights to bear arms,
>>do not explode with incidents of people shooting each other at
>>fender-benders. If you're armed, then there's a good possibility that
>the
>>other guy is, too -- and if you don't kill your target with the first
>>shot, he might just shoot back. (And let's not forget the possibly-armed
>>bystanders who just saw you pull a gun without provocation.)
>
>kinda makes you want to go out and get a big mac or stop by the post
>office and try to cheer up quiet old charlie.
If an armed maniac walks into McDonalds and starts spraying bullets
around, it sure would be nice if a dozen folks were sufficiently armed to
pop him one before he kills everyone. If a couple of the folks at the
post office are armed when Charlie comes by with that look in his eye and
a semi-auto slung over his shoulder, they might be able to stop him, too.
At least they have a better chance than if they are unarmed. In fact, if
Big Mac and Charlie knew that there were going to be armed people at their
intended sites of destruction, they might just think twice.
Sure it would be nice to not allow the McDonald's maniac and Postal
Charlie to get a gun in the first place, but you can't do that without
infringing on the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. The Bill of
Rights is there to protect everyone. Some of the people it protects are
going to end up being criminals and will take advantage of their rights in
various nasty ways. It's the price we pay for our own rights. I'd rather
pay that price than have someone else decide that "rights are too
dangerous" and take them away from everyone.
>>The government tells us, "You lack the maturity required to carry a
>>weapon. You lack the common sense to know when to use it. In fact, no
>>one has the the required level of maturity and common sense.
>
>no, i think the gun control legislation being bocked by the right wing gun
>lobby is such that they don't want to inconvenience quiet old charlie to
>have to wait a couple weeks before they hand him over a very dangerous
>body destroying tool.
A waiting period is reasonable. Registration is reasonable. That's not
what we're talking about here. The discussion is about eliminating guns.
>>No one, that is, except us!" I would hope that by now we would be wary
>>when the government, with all its failed programs, budget overruns,
>>corruption, and scandals, tells us that we should just bend over and
>trust
>>Uncle Sam not to put the screws to us.
>
>got me there, but i sure don't trust quiet old charlie, at least we can
>appeal to uncle sammy.
You're joking, right? When has government ever done something you wanted
done, exactly the way you wanted it done? And do you really think that a
couple of stressed-out workers present more of a danger to this country
than a government which has lost touch with the public it's supposed to be
seerving?
>>The framers of the Constitution wrote the Second Amendment because they
>>understood and accepted the logic of deterrence. They would, I think, be
>>amazed that anyone could consider it other than intuitively obvious.
>
>there are other deterrents to crime, such as jobs and productivity.
Yes, and if we eliminate crime that way, then we won't need to eliminate
guns, will we? In the meantime, let me keep a gun to protect myself, if I
decide it is necessary and prudent to do so.
>>If people believe that the Second Amendment is in error, or is subject to
>>interpretation, there are channels available to amend the Constitution.
>>Passing laws which erode the Bill of Rights to curry public favor is the
>>lazy way out,
>
>unselectively arming the idiots is the lazy way out
The idiots arm themselves. And they will arm themselves regardless of
what you try to ban. If guns are banned, then they will merely become
very expensive, and only the really rich criminals will have them -- in
other words, banning guns will concentrate them in the hands of the
biggest, meanest, baddest gang overlords and mafia leaders. Those who
already have power and money will get more.
It comes down to supply and demand. If you can COMPLETELY cut off the
supply, then a ban will work. If even a FEW get through, the ban has
failed. As you point out, and as I agree, reducing demand is a better
strategy, and one that our politicians are overlooking.
>>and it's one reason why people have so little respect for
>>politicians. If the great majority of the people in this country believe
>>that guns are bad and should be banned, then it should be a simple matter
>>to eliminate the Second Amendment entirely, and the problem would be
>>solved.
>
>guns are cool. gun control is cooler.
This doesn't appear to be an argument for anything. The Bill of Rights is
pretty cool, too.
>>Let me pose just a few hypothetical questions. Do laws against the sale
>>and possession of drugs stop people from selling and using drugs? Do
>laws
>>against prostitution stop people from buying the services of call girls?
>>Do laws against sodomy stop gay men from having sex? Do laws against
>>dumping pollutants into the ocean stop companies from polluting the water
>>supply? Do laws against discriminatory hiring practices stop people from
>>hiring using whatever criteria they desire? Do laws against "sweat
>shops"
>>stop companies from manufacturing products in other countries where such
>>practices are legal? Do laws against hate speech stop people from
>>thinking hateful thoughts? Do laws against violent crimes stop people
>>from killing, raping, and stealing?
>
>no, so let's make killing, raping and stealing legal and see what happens.
> also let's legalize pollution, discrimination, hate speech, child labor
>and wife beating.
My point here was twofold: first, that some things that shouldn't be
illegal are. (Odds are that you found at least one "crime" in my list
that you think there's really nothing wrong with.) Second: total
enforcement is impossible because we lack the resources. As I have
pointed out, a ban is either total, or a failure. Since it can't be
total, all bans are a failure. In this case, banning weapons unfairly
puts the advantage in the hands of the criminals.
>>So what makes you think that laws against carrying guns will stop
>>criminals from owning guns?
>
>much stiffer penalties. same as your argument, just a little safer for
>little jimmy and little suzy.
Personally, I'd feel safer knowing that _I_ am in charge of protecting my
family, rather than the government. After all, the government has proven
its incompetence many times over.
>-Zero'sRunningLate... GottaGoOverseeTheChangingOfTheGuard...
>AndTestOutThatNewTriplePowerPerimeterZapperThingy...
>I'mSureTheFewRemainingNeighbor'sPetsWill... SpreadTheWordTotheLocalKids
>
>Peace, Love and Understanding has known to be fatal to supporters of it.
>Peculiar isn't it?
That's true enough.
--
Jerry Kindall <kin...@manual.com>
Manual Labor <http://www.manual.com/>
Technical Writing; Internet & WWW Consulting
Meg Wilson
oli...@cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) wrote:
> I find it unfortunate, however, that folk in this group seem much more
> concerned with limiting rights than preserving them. Canada, of course,
> does not repect second amendment rights, and I am not surprised that
> you do not, either.
This amused me. I know it's not quite how you meant it, but your words
seem to suggest that second amendment rights are universal and timeless,
such that it makes any sense to talk about Canada respecting them or not
respecting them.
This illustrates exactly what drives me nuts about conservative ideology.
Proposals are defended, not based on how they actually affect people,
but based on some narrow culture-bound concept which has been elevated
to the mysterious status of a "right."
-Meg
(Of course, us liberals think *we're* the ones who care about preserving
rights. See if you can figure *that* out.)
Bill Oliver
In article <wilson-2309...@lcn17.salk.edu>,
Meg Wilson <wil...@crl.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>oli...@cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) wrote:
>
>> I find it unfortunate, however, that folk in this group seem much more
>> concerned with limiting rights than preserving them. Canada, of course,
>> does not repect second amendment rights, and I am not surprised that
>> you do not, either.
>
>This amused me. I know it's not quite how you meant it, but your words
>seem to suggest that second amendment rights are universal and timeless,
>such that it makes any sense to talk about Canada respecting them or not
>respecting them.
>
I strive to be charming, but I am content with being amusing. It is
better than I usually accomplish.
That *is* quite how I meant it. The philosophy of human rights and
liberty upon which the US is built states explicitly that
liberty and all associated rights, such as those delineated in
the Bill of Rights, *are* inalienable. Whether derived from
"natural law" or given by the Creator, these rights are part and
parcel of being human. They are *not* "granted" by a government.
They can be recognized and respected by a government, or they
can be ignored and suppressed, but the rights themselves are
always there.
Such rights *cannot* be "taken away" and they cannot be surrendered,
because they are the natural birthright of every person. That, for instance,
is why Clinton was unable to force people in public housing to
sign away their fourth amendment rights in return for housing as
he attempted to do. Since these rights are inalienable, they
cannot even be given away, and certainly Bill Clinton can't force
a citizen to give them up in return for housing.
I am not surprised that you find it amusing -- the monarchists
of the 18th century found it apalling. The US, in its revolution,
embraced the philosophy of liberty as a natural right. They
chose to become citizens and and rejected subjugation to the Crown.
The monarchists fled to Canada. Canada rejected these concepts, and
chose to remain subjects of the crown.
>This illustrates exactly what drives me nuts about conservative ideology.
>Proposals are defended, not based on how they actually affect people,
>but based on some narrow culture-bound concept which has been elevated
>to the mysterious status of a "right."
>
> -Meg
>
>(Of course, us liberals think *we're* the ones who care about preserving
>rights. See if you can figure *that* out.)
The idea of natural rights was not originally a "conservative" concept.
I am surprised that "you liberals" so easily admit that you have
abandoned it. I certainly agree, however, that this is how you act.
You are wrong, by the way, when you state that concervatives do not
appreciate how the idea of inalienable rights affects people, if
you are including people of my stripe in that label. We simply note
*both* that rights are inalienable and that, ultimately, people
do better when free than when not -- even when those not free
surrender their freedoms to a power which seems initially benign.
billo
Jerry Kindall
In article <wilson-2309...@lcn17.salk.edu>, wil...@crl.ucsd.edu
(Meg Wilson) wrote:
>oli...@cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) wrote:
>
>> I find it unfortunate, however, that folk in this group seem much more
>> concerned with limiting rights than preserving them. Canada, of course,
>> does not repect second amendment rights, and I am not surprised that
>> you do not, either.
>
>This amused me. I know it's not quite how you meant it, but your words
>seem to suggest that second amendment rights are universal and timeless,
>such that it makes any sense to talk about Canada respecting them or not
>respecting them.
The writers of the U.S. Constitution felt that all people have certain
rights, as a result of being human. The Constitution does not grant
rights but merely acknowledges them and states that the government may not
infringe upon them. According to this line of thought, human beings have
always had the right to defend themselves from aggression, and the 2nd
Amendment confirms that right.
Many believe that any country which does not allow free possession of
firearms is in violation of a fundamental human right. In other words, he
meant it just the way it reads. This strikes me as sticking one's nose
where it doesn't belong, to some extent.
[some snippage before and after sig]
> -Meg
Bill Oliver
In article <wilson-2309...@lcn17.salk.edu>,
Meg Wilson <wil...@crl.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>This illustrates exactly what drives me nuts about conservative ideology.
>Proposals are defended, not based on how they actually affect people,
>but based on some narrow culture-bound concept which has been elevated
>to the mysterious status of a "right."
>
How the rights of the Bill of Rights became incorporated into the
Constitution reflects neither narrow thinking, nor is it
all that mysterious.
Since you are mystified in particular with how the right to
bear arms "became" a right, we can do a little review.
Let's look at some history. I am including synopses of two
good articles which deal with the subject. This is the first.
The second will follow.
The following is taken for the most part from "The Second Amendment as a
Phenomenon of Classical Philosophy" by Stephen Halbrook, in Firearms and
Violence: Issues of Public Policy, Don B Kates, ed, Ballinger Publishing
Company, Cambridge, Mass, 1984. In this article, Halbrook attempts to
describe the political and philosophical background which formed the
milieu in which the Founding Fathers worked.
The Bill of Rights, like the Declaration of Independence, derived its
basic philosophy from what Thomas Jefferson called "the elementary books
of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc." (1)
In fact, the "Right to Bear Arms" was discussed not only by the
republican philosophers, but by the authoritarian philosophers such as
Plato, Hobbes, and others. In general, as you might expect, the republican
philosophers supported private ownership of arms, while the authoritarian
philosophers considered dangerous.
PLATO
Plato saw institutions moving, undesirably but naturally, from oligarchy
to democracy to despotism. Essential to each of these stages was the
tendency of the unjust to win priviledge and power through "armed force"
and the opposition thereto of "the armed multitude." Oligarchy arises when
priviledge based on wealth is fixed by statute, and is threatened when
the state faces an external foe, leading to the necessity of war and
hence the arming of the multitude. The armed citizenry can then
rise up, and "whether by force of arms or because the other party is
terrorized into giving way," the poor majority takes power and establishes
a democracy, which grants people "an equal share in civil rights and
government." "Liberty and free speech are rife everywhere; anyone is
allowed to do what he likes."(2)
Plato's negative attitude towards democracy is based not only on rejection
of democratic ideals, but also because he felt that it would inevitably
lead to tyranny. After the oligarchy is replaced by a society progressing
towards democracy, a strong leader arises who "begins stirring up one war
after another, on order that the people may feel their need of a leader,
and also be so impoverished by taxation that they will be forced to
think of nothing but winning their daily bread, instead of plotting against
him." Finally, the despot wins complete victory by reestablishing the state
monopoly of arms:
Then, to be sure, the people will learn what sort of creature
it has bred and nursed to greatness in its bosom, until now
the child is too strong for the parent to drive out.
Do you men that the despot will dare to lay hands on this
father of his and beat him if he resists?
Yes, when once he has disarmed him.
Plato's ideal was the "philosopher king," whose primary difference from
a tyrant was alleged good intentions. Plato proposes a strictly
hierarchical social structure with a royal elite at the top, soldier
auxiliaries in the middle, and the "inferior multitude" at the bottom.
The practical implementation of this system is found in his Laws (3).
To assure domination of the elite, the individual would have no right
to keep arms and would be allowed to bear them only at the discretion
of the State. By thus carefully circumscribing the right to keep
and bear arms, Plato hoped to avoid the conundrum he saw as inevitable
in oligarcy -- providing the individual with arms necessary to support
the state from external attack inevitably would lead to popular liberty.
The Laws insists that "freedom from control must be uncompromisingly
eliminated from the life of all men." "... no one, man or woman, must
ever be left without someone in charge of him; nobody must get into the
habit of acting independently in either sham fighting or
the real thing..."
ARISTOTLE
In his Politics, Aristotle critically analyzed Plato's ideal. Aristotle's
concept of polity was based on a large middle class which fulfilled all
three functions of self-legislation, arms bearing, and working. According
to Aristotle, "there are many things Socrates left undetermined; are
farmers and craftsmen to have no share in government...? Are they not to
possess arms...?"(4)
In accord with his broad philosophical ideal of the mean, Aristotle saw in
the right to keep and bear arms the true basis of political equality. "The
whole consititutional set-up is intended to be neither democracy or
oligarchy, but midway between the two -- what is sometimes called 'polity,'
the members of which are those who bear arms."
...
Since all true citizens possess arms, the class of arms bearers is not
limited to those who defend the state in war. Just after referring to
"the class which will defend in time of war," Aristotle states that "it is
quite normal for the same persons to be found bearing arms and tilling the
soil." By contrast, "oligarchial devices" exist in "regulations ... made
about carrying arms," to the effect that "it is lawful for the poor not to
possess arms; the rich are fined if they do not have them." ... In
Aristotle's ideal polity, each citizen is to personally keep his own arms
which would not be owned by the State, "... For those who possess and can
wield arms are in a position to decide whether the constitution is to
continue or not." And since he argued that no free person submits to a
tyrant and that rule without consent is neither rightful nor legal,
Aristotle deemed arms possession a requisite to obtain or maintain the
status of being a freeman and citizen.
In the Athenian Constitution, Aritsotle described the manner in which
Peisistratus seized power by force and set up a tyranny by disarming the
Athenians. Having been exiled for establishing a tyranny, Peisistratus
hired soldiers and returned.
Winning the battle of Pallenis, he seized the government and
disarmed the people; and now he held the tyranny firmly, and
he took Naxos and appointed Lygdamis ruler. The way in which
he disarmed the people was this: He held an armed muster at
the Temple of Theseus, and began to hold an Assembly, but
he lowered his voice a little, and when they said they could
not hear hem, he told them to come up to the forecourt of the
Acropolis, in order that his voice might carry better; and
while he used up time making a speech, the men told off for
this purpose gathered up the arms, locked them in the neighboring
buildings of the Temple of Theseus, and came and informed
Peisistratus.
Peisistratus told the people that henceforth only he would manage public
affairs.
Peisistratus was tyrant for almost two decades and was succeeded by his
sons, Hippias and Hipparchus. After Hipparchus was assassinated during a
procession, Hippias resorted to torture and execution, "but the current
story that Hippias made the people in the procession fall away from their
arms and searched for those that retained their daggers is not true, for in
those days they did not walk in the procession armed, but this custom was
instituted later by the democracy."
ROMANS
Cicero, Livy, and other Roman philosophers and historians were particularly
studied by the Founding Fathers, for the Roman Republic provided at once an
ideal and a condign warning of the frailty of republican institutions. As
a lawyer, Cicero upheld the right of individuals to bear and use arms
against tyranny and in self-defense. In defense of Titus Annius Milo,
Cicero argued that the right of self-defense is inborn, derived from
nature, and known by intuition, and that arms bearing was justified absent
any criminal motive. Referring to "the swords we carry' to meet violence
with violence, Cicero stated:
I refer to the law which lays down that, if our lives are
endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies,
any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right...
Indeed, even when the wisdom of the law itself, by a sort of
tacit implication, permits self-defense, because it does not
actually forbid men to kill; what it does, instead, is to
forbid the bearing of a weapon with the intention to kill.
When, therefore, an inquiry passes beyond the mere question
of the weapon and starts to consider the motive, a man who
has used arms in self-defense is not regarded as having carried
them with a homicidal aim.(5)
Civilized people, barbarians, and wild beasts "learn that they have to
defend their own bodies and persons and lives form violence of any and
every kind by all the means within their power." In short, Cicero held it
a natural right to bear arms and to use them for individual self-defense.
MACHIAVELLI
Subsequently, the republican political philosopher Machiavelli, who heavily
influenced Algernon Sidney, John Adams, and other British and American
Whigs, took from the Roman example the lesson that the armed people was an
essential safeguard for republican institutions. On this theme,
Machiavelli develops several interconnected points.
The first of these, which appears in his earliest work, The Art of War, is
that an armed people will not forfeit their liberties to a domestic tyrant:
Rome remained free for four hundred years and Sparta eight hundred
although their citizens were armed all that time; but many other
states that have been disarmed have lost their liberties in less
than forty years.[This was also true for the Romans when they
allowed themselves to be disarmed] For Augustus, and after him
Tiberias, more interested in establishing and increasing their
own power than in promoting the public good, began to disarm
the Roman people (in order to make them more passive under their
tyranny) and to keep the same armies continually on foot within
the confines of the empire.(6)
In the Discourses, Machiavelli again discusses Rome:
If a city be armed and disciplined as Rome was, and all its
citizens, alike in their private and official capacity, have a
chance to put alike their virtue and the power of fortune to
the test of experience, it will be found that always their
and in all circumstances they will be of the same mind and
will maintain their dignity in the same way. But, when
they are not familiar with arms and merely trust to the whim
of fortune, not to their own virtue, they will change with
the changes of fortune... (7)
...
Revolutionaries such as Jefferson took Machiavelli's advice that "all
armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones failed." In the final
analysis, states are founded on "good laws and good arms... [T]here cannot be
good laws where there are not good arms..."(8)
AUTHORITARIANS
The work of the great French 16th century absolutist, Jean Bodin, is in
many ways the mirror image of Machiavelli. His Six Books of Commonweal
(1576) lists recommendations for the preservation of monarchical power,
among which are disarming the people and suppression of speech:
Another and the most usual way to prevent sedition, is to
take away the subject's arms: howbeit, that the Princes of
Italy, and of the East cannot endure that they shall at all
have arms; as do the people of the North and West... [Wise is
the Turkish practice] not in only punishing with all severity
the seditious and mutinous people, but also by forbidding
them to bear arms... [Y]et another [cause of seditions and
rebellions is] the immoderate liberty of speech given to
orators, who direct and guide the people's hearts and minds
according to their own pleasure.(9)
Using several historical examples to show how arms and speech had
"translated the sovereignty from the nobility to the people and changed the
Aristocracy into a Democratic State," Bodin complained that "we have
seen all Germany in arms... after that the mutinous creatures had stirred
up the people against the nobility."
...
Citing the example of the Egyptians and the teaching of Plato he concluded
that it should be illegal for most subjects "to use and bear arms" and that
society should be divided into distinct classes with only the few trained
to arms.
Although Bodin's considerable influence on Thomas Hobbes Leviathan is
clear, distinct elements of English policy and tradition concerning the
right to bear arms made it impossible for Hobbes to follow the Frenchman on
this point. From at least 1500, the French monarchy had consistently
sought to disarm the common citizen on the rationale that "since an
imposing array of royal officers was charged with the protection of his
life and property, he did not need to undertake this protection
himself."(10) But the English had a long tradition of requiring citizens
to maintain arms and perform these functions with the constant aid of
"watch and ward" organizations and the general supervision of of the
constables and shire reeves (sheriffs).(11) ...
Thus Hobbes could join Bodin only in condemning sedition and repudiating
Aristotle's and Cicero's belief in the right to overthrow tyranny by armed
force. Hobbes could not deny the duty of the English citizen to enforce
both King's law and natural law by arms. Thus, Hobbes acknowledged as the
"summe of the Right of Nature" that "By all means we can, to defend
ourselves." Indeed, he regarded this right as so fundamental as to be
inalienable, that is, not subject to waiver under any circumstances: "a
covenant not to defend my selfe from force, by force, is always
voyd."(12)
LIBERTARIANS
John Locke's 1689 refutation of absolutism in the Second Treatise on Civil
Government demonstrated the difficulty in Hobbe's attempt to reconcile the
popular possession of arms and this right of self-defense with
authoritarian theory. Locke's primary contribution in the minds of English
revolutionaries of 1688 and the Americans of 1776 was his argument that
tyranny may of right be resisted in the same manner as private aggression.
If private persons "have a right to defend themselves and recover by force
what by unlawful force is taken from them," then they have the right to
reclaim by force the liberties of which the state has unlawfully deprived
them. Tyranny, being illegal, may be resisted by force just as people may
resist robbers or pirates. As even the pro-monarchist Barclay conceded:
"self-defense is a part of the law of nature; nor can it be denied the
community, even against the king himself."(13)
The only work which might conceivably have rivaled Locke in influence upon
the founders of the American republic is Algernon Sidney's Discourses
concerning Government, published in 1698, fifteen years after his execution
by Charles II. ... Sidney based his realist theory of arms and freedom on
the premise that "Swords were given to men, that none might be Slaves, but
such as know not how to use them." (14)
...
Like Locke, Sidney held that each individual is naturally free, that by the
law of nature each person has a right to his own life, liberty, goods, and
lands, and that tyrannical governments may rightfully be abolished.
Ultimately, each person must guarantee his own freedom, which is why the
ancients "carried their Liberty in their own breasts, and had Hands and
Swords to defend it." "Let the danger be never so great, there is a
possibility of safety while men have life, hands, arms, and courage to use
them; but that people must certainly perish, who tamely suffer themselves
to be oppressed..."
CONCLUSION
Concurring with the seventeenth century English Whig Marchamont Nedham
"that the people be continually trained up in the exercise of arms, and the
militia lodged only in the people's hands," John Adams cited Nedham
favorably on the Greek and Roman sources of this principle:
"As Aristotle tells us, in his fourth book of Politics, the Grecian
states ever has special care to place the use and exercise of arms
in the people, because the commonwealth is theirs who hold
the arms: the sword and sovereignty ever walk hand
in hand together." This is perfectly just. "Rome, and the
territories about it, were trained up perpetually in arms, and
the whole commonwealth, by this means, became one formal militia.
There was no difference in order between the citizen, and the
soldier."(15)
Adams went on to note approvingly that "arms in the hands of citizens may
be used at individual discretion" for various purposes, including "private
self-defense."
REFERENCES
1) Thomas Jefferson, Living Thoughts, J. Dewey, ed. Fawcett, Greewich,
Conn. 1940.
2) Plato, Republic.
3) Plato, Laws
4)Aristotle, Politics.
5)Cicero, Selected Political Speeches, trans. M. Grant. Penguin, N.Y.,
1962.
6) Niccolo Machiavelli. The Art of War. trans E. Farnsworth. Bobbs-Merrill,
Indianapolis, 1965.
7) Niccolo Machiavelli. Discourses. trans L. Walker Penguin, N.Y. 1970.
8) Niccolo Machiavelli. The Prince. trans L. Ricci. New American Library,
N.Y. 1952. For Machiavelli's influence on the Founding Fathers, see
H. Granter, "The Machiavellianism of George Mason", J. Pocock, "The
Machiavellian Moment", and John Adams, "A Defense of the Constitution of
the United States of America."
9) Jean Bodin, The Six Books of Commonweale, trans. R. Knolles. G. Bishop,
London, 1606.
10) Lee Kennet and James Anderson. The Gun in America. Fawcett, Greewich,
Conn. 1975.
11) Colin Greenwood. Firearms Control: A Study of Firearms Controls and
Armed Crime in England and Wales. Routledge and Kegan Paul. London. 1972.
12) Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan. Washington Square Press. N.Y. 1964.
13) John Locke. Of Civil Government. Henry Regnery Co. Chicago. 1955.
14) Algernon Sidney. discourses Concerning Government. London, 1698.
15) John Adams. A Defense of the Constitution of the United States of
America.
Bill Oliver
In article <wilson-2309...@lcn17.salk.edu>,
Meg Wilson <wil...@crl.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>This illustrates exactly what drives me nuts about conservative ideology.
>Proposals are defended, not based on how they actually affect people,
>but based on some narrow culture-bound concept which has been elevated
>to the mysterious status of a "right."
>
This is the second article which deals with our mysterious rights.
This is taken from The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, an
article by R.E. Shalhope, published in the Journal of American History,
Vol 69, pp 599-614,1982.
Since its ratification in 1791, the Second Amendment has remained in relative
obscurity. Virtually ignored by the Supreme Court, the amendment has been
termed "obsolete," "defunct," and an "unused provision" with no meaning
for the twentieth century by scholars dealing with the Bill of Rights. And
yet, many Americans consider this amendment as vital to their liberties
today as did the founders nearly two hundred years ago. Their sense of
urgency arises from the current debate over gun control.
....
For their part, advocates of restrictive gun legislation emphasize
collective rights and communal responsibilities. In order to protect
society form the violence they associate with armed individuals, these
people stress the "well regulated Militia" phrase within the Second
Amendment. Irving Brant's "The Bill of Rights" typifies this position/
Claiming that the Second Amendment, "popularly misread, comes to life
chiefly on the parade floats of rifle associations," Brant contends that
the amendments true purpose was to forbid Congress to prohibit the
maintenance of a state militia." Therefore, by its very nature, "that
amendment cannot be transformed into a personal right to bear arms,
enforceable by federal compulsion upon the states."...
This bifurcation of the Second Amendment into its two separate phrases
invariably rests upon appeals to history. Advocates of both sides draw
upon the same historical data but interpret them differently in light of
their present-day beliefs. Opponents of gun control keep emphasizing the
individualistic character of the founders whereas supporters of restrictive
legislation keep insisting that these men were far more concerned with the
collective behavior of Americans. Given this impasse, an attempt to
understand the origins of the amendment within the perspective of the late
eighteenth, rather than that of the late twentieth, century should provide
useful insights into both the beliefs of the founders and the intent of the
amendment.
During the last several decades many scholars dealing with the Revolution
have labored to reconstruct the participants' view of their era as a
primary means of understanding the period. As a result we now recognize
the importance of "republicanism," a distinctive universe of ideas and
beliefs, in shaping contemporary perceptions of late-eighteenth century
American society. ... Drawing heavily upon the libertarian thought of the
English commonwealthmen, colonial Americans believed that a republic's very
existence depended upon the character and spirit of its citizens. A people
noted for their frugality, industry, independence, and courage were good
republican stock. Those intent upon luxury lost first their desire and
then their ability to protect and maintain a republican society...
The historical literature devoted to explicating American republicanism has
grown immense. Among the strands of thought most commonly discussed as
central to this persuasion two are immediately relevant to understanding
the Second Amendment. These are the fear of standing armies and the
exaltation of militias composed of ordinary citizens. There is, however,
and equally vital theme contained in libertarian literature which, except
in the work of J.G.A. Pocock, has been largely ignored in the recent
literature dealing with republicanism. To gain a fuller comprehension of
the origins of the Second Amendment it is essential therefore to understand
the place of the armed citizen in libertarian thought and the manner in
which this theme became and integral part of American republicanism.
In order to delineate libertarian beliefs regarding the relationship
between arms and society it is necessary to start with the Florentine
tradition upon which republican thought drew so heavily. This tradition,
articulated most clearly by Niccolo Machiavelli, idealized the citizen
warrior as the staunchest bulwark of a republic... This theme, relating
arms and civic virtue, runs throughout Machiavelli, and from it emerged the
belief that arms and a full array of civic rights were inseparable. To
deny arms to some men while allowing them to others was an intolerable
denial of freedom. Machiavelli's belief that arms were essential to
liberty -- in order for the individual citizen to protect himself, to hunt,
to defend his state against foreign invasion, to keep his rulers honest,
and to maintain his republican character -- provided an important
foundation upon which subsequent republican writers could build.
With the passage of time the essential character of Florentine thought,
which emphasized a connection between the distribution of arms within a
society and the prevalence of aristocracy or republicanism, liberty or
corruption, remained vital to many writers. Both Sir Walter Raleigh and
jean Bodin stressed the relationship between arms and the form of
government and society that emerged within a nation. Indeed Raleigh
enunciated several "sophisms" of the tyrant. Among these were "To unarm
his people of weapons, money and all means whereby they may resist his
power." The more subtle tyrant followed this rule:"To unarm his people,
store up their weapons, under pretence of keeping them safe, and having
them ready when service requireth, and then to arm them with such, and as
many as he shall think meet, and to commit them to such as are sure men."
For his part, Bodin, philosopher of the French monarchy, emphasized the
essential difference between democratic societies and monarchies regarding
arms. He believed that monarchs courted disaster by arming the common
people for "it is to be feared they will attempt to change the state, to
have a part in the government." In a monarchy "the most usual way to
prevent sedition, is to take away the subjects armes." Where democracy was
the rule the general populace could be and should be armed.
The English libertarian writers of the latter half of the seventeenth
century amplified and shaped the Florentine tradition in response to
changing circumstances. Marchamont Nedham declared that a republican
society and government rested upon the popular possession of arms as well
as on the regular election of magistrates and representatives ...
...
John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon also integrated the idea of the armed
citizen and the constant struggle libertarians perceived between Power and
Liberty. Their "Cato's Letters" exclaimed "The Exercise of despotick Power
is the unrelenting War of an armed Tyrant upon his unarmed Subjects: It is
a War of one Side, and in it there is neither Peace nor Truce." Rulers must
always be restrained. An unarmed populace merely encouraged their natural
tendency toward oppression:"Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above
all Shame."
...
[W]hile the concept of the armed citizen was sometimes linked with that of
the militia, libertarians just as often stressed this idea as an
independent theme or joined it with other issues.... This latter tendency
is evident in the writing of James Burgh, the libertarian most attractive
to Americans. His "Political Disquisitions" provided a grab bag of ideas
which Americans integrated into their vision of republicanism. stressing
the relationship between arms and power in a society, Burgh declared:"Those
who have the command of the arms in a country, says Aristotle, are masters
of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they
please." Thus, "there is no end to observations on the difference between
the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army
and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." For burgh the
very nature of society was related to whether or not its citizens had arms
and were vigorous in their use. " No kingdom can be secured otherwise than
by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a
freeman and a slave. He who has nothing, and who himself belongs to
another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms.
But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own,
ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives
precariously, and at discretion."
....
When Madison wrote the amendments to the Constitution that formed the basis
for the Bill of Rights, he did not do so within a vacuum. Instead, he
composed them in an environment permeated by the emergent republican
ideology and with the aid of innumerable suggestions from his countrymen.
These most commonly came from the state fills of rights and the hundreds of
amendments suggested by the state conventions that ratified the
Constitution. These sources continually reiterated four beliefs relative
to the issues eventually incorporated into the Second Amendment: the right
of the individual to possess arms, the fear of a professional army, the
reliance on militias controlled by the individual states, and the
subordination of the military to civilian control.
The various state bills of rights dealt with these four issues in different
ways. Some considered them as separate rights, others combined them. New
Hampshire, for example, included four distance articles to deal with the
militia, standing armies, military subordination, and individual bearing of
arms. For its part, Pennsylvania offered a single inclusive article: "That
the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the
state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to
liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept
under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Virginia, too, presented an inclusive statement:"That a well-regulated
militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the
proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State; that standing armies,
in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in
all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and
governed by, the civil power."
The amendments suggested by the various state ratifying conventions were of
a similar nature... New Hampshire did not mention the militia but did state
"that no standing Army shall be kept up in time of peace unless with the
consent or three fourths of the Members of each branch of Congress, nor
shall soldiers in Time of Peace be quartered upon private Houses without
the consent of the Owners." Then in a separate amendment:"Congress shall
never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual
Rebellion."... The minority report of the Pennsylvania convention, which
became a widely publicized Antifederalist tract, was most specific: "That
the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and
their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game;
and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless
for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury form individuals; and
as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they
ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict
subordination to and be governed by the civil power."
On the specific right of individuals to keep arms, Madison could also draw
upon the observations of Samuel Adams, then governor of Massachusetts, and
his close friend and confidant, Thomas Jefferson. For his part, Adams
offered an amendment in the Massachusetts convention that read " And that
the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe
upon the liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent
the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping
their own arms..." In his initial draft of a proposed constitution for the
state of Virginia, Jefferson did not mention a militia, but did state that
no standing army should exist except in time of actual war. Then in a
separate phrase, he wrote "No freemen shall ever be debarred the use of
arms." He amended this statement in his next two drafts to read: "No
freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or
tenements."
Madison and his colleagues on the select committee charged with creating a
bill of rights were anxious to capture the essence of the rights demanded
by so many Americans in so many different forms. To do this they
eliminated many suggestions, reworded others, and consolidated as many as
possible in order to come up with a reasonable number of amendments... As
with other amendments that combined various essential rights, it was
the intent of the committee neither to subordinate one right to the other
nor to have one clause serve as subordinate to the other. This became
obvious in the discussion of the amendment that took place on the floor of
Congress.
Although brief, the discussion occasioned by the Second Amendment is
instructive for its indication of congressional intent to protect two
separate rights: the individual's right to possess arms and the right of
the states to form their own militia. Elbridge Gerry made this clear when
he attacked the phrase dealing with conscientious objectors, those
"scrupulous of bearing arms," that appeared in the original amendment.
Manifesting the standard libertarian distrust of government, Gerry claimed
that the amendment under discussion "was intended to secure the people
against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose
that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the
occasion for guards of this kind would be removed." However, Gerry was
suspicious that the federal government might employ this phrase "to destroy
the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously
scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."... Thomas Scott of
Pennsylvania also objected to this phrase for fear that it "would lead to
the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the
people the right of keeping arms." The entire thrust of this discussion,
as well as one related to a militia bill also under consideration, was that
congressmen distinguished not only between the militia and the right of the
individual to possess arms but between the individual's possession of arms
and his bearing of them. That is, they believed that all should have the
right to possess arms but that all should not necessarily be responsible
for bearing them in defense of the state. In the discussion over the
militia bill, for example, one representative declared: "As far as the
whole body of the people are necessary to the general defense, they ought
to be armed; but the law ought not to require more than is necessary; for
that would be just cause of complaint." Another believed that "the people
of America would never consent to be deprived of the privilege of carrying
arms." Others even argued that those Americans who did not possess arms
should have them supplied by the states. This discussion clearly indicated
that the problem perceived by the representatives was how to get arms into
the hands of all American males between the ages of eighteen and
forty-five, not how to restrict such possession to those in militia
service.
...
Whether the armed citizen is relevant to late-twentieth century American
life is something that only the American people -- through the Supreme
Court, their state legislatures, and Congress -- can decide. Those who
advocate some measure of gun control are not without powerful arguments to
advance on behalf of their position... But advocates of the control of
firearms should not argue that the Second Amendment did not intend for
Americans of the late eighteenth century to possess arms for their own
personal defense, for the defense of their states and their nation, and for
the purpose of keeping their rulers sensitive to the rights of the people.
Ken Stitzel
Bill Oliver (oli...@cs.unc.edu) wrote:
: Such rights *cannot* be "taken away" and they cannot be surrendered,
: for instance, is why Clinton was unable to force people in public
: housing to sign away their fourth amendment rights in return for
Just a thought as counterpoint:
I seem to recall from my Communications Law class that there was
indeed a Supreme Court case in which an individual signed away his
1st Amendment rights as part of his work for the CIA. Therefore was
the government able to censor his book and order it removed from
circulation. Granted, he still retained the right to say the same
things at public lectures (perhaps the agreement he signed merely
did not mention this avenue of expression?), but he had indeed signed
away his rights, and the court upheld this notion.
--
Ken Stitzel (k...@fc.hp.com)
Learning Products Engineer (tech writer with functional enhancements)
Hewlett-Packard Company (a pretty cool company to work for)
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
(Opinions stated herein are provided without warranty and are not
representative of official or unofficial HP policy on signing away
your ri... OOPS, I can't say that ;-)
AutorCasi
wil...@crl.ucsd.edu (Meg Wilson) wrote:
> This illustrates exactly what drives me nuts about conservative ideology.
> Proposals are defended, not based on how they actually affect people,
> but based on some narrow culture-bound concept which has been elevated
> to the mysterious status of a "right."
Could you please enlighten us all as to what is the definition of a right?
And whether anything falling in that classification could be considered
timeless and why?
Thanks.
--AutorCasi
Bill Oliver
In article <526nhr$p...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Ken Stitzel <k...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>
>I seem to recall from my Communications Law class that there was
>indeed a Supreme Court case in which an individual signed away his
>1st Amendment rights as part of his work for the CIA. Therefore was
>the government able to censor his book and order it removed from
>circulation. Granted, he still retained the right to say the same
>things at public lectures (perhaps the agreement he signed merely
>did not mention this avenue of expression?), but he had indeed signed
>away his rights, and the court upheld this notion.
>
This was Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507 (1980), in which the
defendant did not submit a book he wrote for CIA review, and by
doing so he broke a contract. The case was decided on the basis
of the fiducial trust, and the remedy was that the defendant had
to turn over all money made from the book.
Basically, the Court did not rule on the basis of speech rights,
but of fiducial responsibility. Note also that it was a 6-3
decision, with 3 justices deciding that this *was* an infringement
of speech. NONE of the justices felt that this agreement
validated the concept of being able to "sign away" a right. Most
of the justices just didn't see it as a question of rights at all.
As you might expect, *I* agree with the dissent.
It would have been more interesting if Snepp had sumitted the book,
the CIA decided not to allow him to publish, but did also not
classify anything in it, and then he published anyway.
The gut of the decision is:
(begin excerpt from the decision)
Whether Snepp violated his trust does not depend upon whether his book
actually contained classified information. The Government does not
deny -- as a general principle -- Snepp's right to publish unclassified
information. Nor does it contend -- at this stage of the litigation --
that Snepp's book contains classified material. The Government simply
claims that, in light of the special trust reposed in him and the
agreement that he signed, Snepp should have given the CIA an opportunity
to determine whether the material he proposed to publish would compromise
classified information or sources. Neither of the Government's concessions
undercuts its claim that Snepp's failure to submit to prepublication
review was a breach of his trust.
(end excerpt)
As Stevens noted:
"The purpose of such an agreement, as the Fourth Circuit held, is not to
give the CIA the power to censor its employees' critical speech, but
rather to ensure that classified, nonpublic information is not
disclosed without the Agency's permission."
The remedy also did not depend upon a question of rights, but of
fiducial trust obligations. Snepp was not gaged. He was free to
write his book -- he just couldn't make any money from it. The remedy
was not to punish him for speech, but for breaking his fiducial
responsibility. As the decision states:
(begin excerpt)
A constructive trust, on the other hand, protects both the Government and
the former agent from unwarranted risks. This remedy is the natural
and customary consequence of a breach of trust. It deals fairly with
both parties by conforming relief to the dimensions of the wrong. If
the agent secures prepublication clearance, he can publish with no
fear of liability. If the agent publishes unreviewed material in
violation of his fiduciary and contractual obligation, the trust remedy
simply requires him to disgorge the benefits of his faithlessness.
(end excerpt)
billo
billo
Bill Price
Yes, many can, but it might be more appropriate on another ng--this one's
moved pretty far from writing
-bp
Fred Welden
Well, now that this has swung back around to something related to the art
and business of writing, I reckon I can feel free to jump in.
In article <526upq$5...@baldhead.cs.unc.edu> Bill Oliver (oli...@cs.unc.edu) wrote:
[in part, after much snipping]
> This was Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507 (1980), in which the
> defendant did not submit a book he wrote for CIA review, and by
> doing so he broke a contract. The case was decided on the basis
> of the fiducial trust, and the remedy was that the defendant had
> to turn over all money made from the book.
[snip again]
> It would have been more interesting if Snepp had sumitted the book,
> the CIA decided not to allow him to publish, but did also not
> classify anything in it, and then he published anyway.
[final snip]
I'm curious about this phrase that crept in here: "did . . . not classify
anything in it." If the CIA had declared some information in this book
classified, would Snepp have lost his right to publish that information?
Perhaps that "right" is not so inalienable as we first thought?
Suppose for a moment that the CIA did something really heinous
(something they'd never, in real life, do--like plotting the
assasination of a populist demagogue bent on disbanding the CIA) and
declared documents pertaining to the plot classified. Would it not be
right and proper for someone in possession of those documents to
publish them? Would classification of those documents abrogate that
someone's rights?
--Fred | wel...@ntrnet.net
| Even an Ibanski sometimes finds a pugmoose.
Bill Oliver
In article <528n9m$q...@tofu.alt.net>,
Fred Welden <wel...@ns1.ntrnet.net> wrote:
>
>I'm curious about this phrase that crept in here: "did . . . not classify
>anything in it." If the CIA had declared some information in this book
>classified, would Snepp have lost his right to publish that information?
>Perhaps that "right" is not so inalienable as we first thought?
>
>Suppose for a moment that the CIA did something really heinous
>(something they'd never, in real life, do--like plotting the
>assasination of a populist demagogue bent on disbanding the CIA) and
>declared documents pertaining to the plot classified. Would it not be
>right and proper for someone in possession of those documents to
>publish them? Would classification of those documents abrogate that
>someone's rights?
>
You need to separate in your mind the existence of a right from the ability to
exercise that right. When the government classifies a document, it does
not take away your right fo free speech. It simply states that if
you exercise that right, they will throw you in jail.
For a more classical example, consider slavery. Dred Scott had the
right to be free, regardless of whtether or not the Supreme Court
recognized that right. Slavery was wrong even though the Supreme Court
recognized its constitutionality at the time. Returning Dred Scott to
slavery did not destroy or remove his *right* to freedom. That right,
being inalienable, remained with him regardless of the cruelty or
evil of the government which enslaved him.
Similarly, the classification of documents does not remove the right
to free speech. It means that the government will hurt you
if you exercise it. Not surprisingly, the inappropriate classification
of documents has been a source of constant and egregious misuse
of trust in this nation -- a problem recently and increasingly appreciated.
billo
Fred Welden
In article <5296s3$k...@baldhead.cs.unc.edu> Bill Oliver (oli...@cs.unc.edu) wrote:
> You need to separate in your mind the existence of a right from the ability to
> exercise that right.
Oh, they're plenty separate in my mind already. I was just interested
in whether you distinguished between "legal rights" and just plain
"rights." Take, for example, copyright. I can sign that away, if I
want, so that someone else has the right to publish my novel and I don't.
Also, when I buy stuff, I notice on the warranty that it always says
"You may have other rights which vary from state to state"--hardly the
kind of thing that implies the universality of rights that you've been
talking about. So I assume that copyright and the rights referred to
in warranty statements aren't the same kind of rights as freedom of
speech and the keeping and bearing of arms.
You can see how folks might get confused and think that, since they are
permitted to restrict and modify one set of things that are called
rights as times and circumstances change, they might be permitted to
restrict and modify other things that are called rights likewise.
Or is there some natural and inalienable copyright and warranty rights that
these governmental restrictions infringe upon to varying degrees? Maybe
the problem is that folks ought to be up in arms about current copyright
laws and the strange variance of warranty rights from state to state,
and they aren't. In which case, you can see how we've been lulled into
misunderstanding how our rights work--consumer activism and the Bern
convention on copyrights being a sort of slippery slope, as it were.
--Fred | wel...@ntrnet.net
| Hi, I'm Fred and I'm an amateur.
Bill Oliver
In article <529hsq$n...@tofu.alt.net>,
Fred Welden <wel...@ns1.ntrnet.net> wrote:
>In article <5296s3$k...@baldhead.cs.unc.edu> Bill Oliver (oli...@cs.unc.edu) wrote:
>
Oh, I don't think that folk need be too confused, unless they just
want to be -- or pretend to be. For instance, what do *you* think?
You are right. I can see a difference between my
neighbor's right to freedom and the right I give him to put his trashcan
on my property on trash pick up days. One comes from his Creator, the
other comes from me. I can rescind the one I gave. If you do not
make such a distinction, please tell us why.
billo
Fred Welden
Frankly, I think folks *are* confused. I think we, the people, have
screamed and howled and hurled threats at our elected representatives
so often and so well that they, and the whole culture of elected
representation in the United States, have decided that we must *want*
them to ignore the distinctions between inalienable rights, rights
guaranteed us by the Constitution but subject to amendment, and rights
granted to us provisionally by enabling legislation. The result has
been a reduction of all rights to the treatment given this last class
of rights.
When was the last time you heard a Congressman, addressing his
constituents, say "I understand that y'all want the crime rate to come
down, but we still have to respect the rights of the criminals?" These
days if those rights make enforcing the law inconvenient, well, heck,
we'll just change 'em, 'cause Congressmen who are unwilling to just
change 'em don't get re-elected.
But to get down to the nitty-gritty here we're going to have to talk
about guns, prisons, RICO, and the strange fact that here in the US we
take away felons' right to vote, and none of those things has to do with
the charter of misc.writing. So I'll take this to e-mail, and ask
anyone who wants to follow it there to send me e-mail so I can create a
mailing list for their convenience.
--Fred | wel...@ntrnet.net
| "I read it." --Elizabeth Holthaus, G.K. Hall & Co.
Jerry Kindall
>In article <529uq7$6...@baldhead.cs.unc.edu> Bill Oliver
(oli...@cs.unc.edu) wrote:
>> In article <529hsq$n...@tofu.alt.net>,
>> Fred Welden <wel...@ns1.ntrnet.net> wrote:
>> >In article <5296s3$k...@baldhead.cs.unc.edu> Bill Oliver
(oli...@cs.unc.edu) wrote:
>> >
>> > [Fred gets a little coy]
>
>> Oh, I don't think that folk need be too confused, unless they just
>> want to be -- or pretend to be. For instance, what do *you* think?
>
>> You are right. I can see a difference between my
>> neighbor's right to freedom and the right I give him to put his trashcan
>> on my property on trash pick up days. One comes from his Creator, the
>> other comes from me. I can rescind the one I gave. If you do not
>> make such a distinction, please tell us why.
>
>Frankly, I think folks *are* confused. I think we, the people, have
>screamed and howled and hurled threats at our elected representatives
>so often and so well that they, and the whole culture of elected
>representation in the United States, have decided that we must *want*
>them to ignore the distinctions between inalienable rights, rights
>guaranteed us by the Constitution but subject to amendment, and rights
>granted to us provisionally by enabling legislation. The result has
>been a reduction of all rights to the treatment given this last class
>of rights.
This is quite true. I recall quite clearly one television interview I
saw, oh, ten years ago. I was in high school at the time, and was hardly
politically aware or even interested in politics, so the fact that I even
remember this demonstrates what an impression it made on me. I saw a news
story with a guy protesting a recent increase in registration fees for 4X4
vehicles, and the guy said: "I have a right to drive whatever kind of
vehicle I want! This is discrimination, plain and simple!" I recognized
at the time that this was patently absurd, but if people think that they
have the God-given "right" to drive whatever vehicle they want, regardless
of whether they can afford it, who knows what other "rights" they think
they have?
The man, of course, had a perfect right to object to the increased
registration fee -- but his reasoning was utterly wrong.
Bill Oliver
In article <52bbn1$c...@tofu.alt.net>,
Fred Welden <wel...@ns1.ntrnet.net> wrote:
>
>Frankly, I think folks *are* confused. I think we, the people, have
>screamed and howled and hurled threats at our elected representatives
>so often and so well that they, and the whole culture of elected
>representation in the United States, have decided that we must *want*
>them to ignore the distinctions between inalienable rights, rights
>guaranteed us by the Constitution but subject to amendment, and rights
>
That we do agree on.
>When was the last time you heard a Congressman, addressing his
>constituents, say "I understand that y'all want the crime rate to come
>down, but we still have to respect the rights of the criminals?" These
>days if those rights make enforcing the law inconvenient, well, heck,
>we'll just change 'em, 'cause Congressmen who are unwilling to just
>change 'em don't get re-elected.
>
Actually, some folk took a fairly corageous stand. There was good
rights-based opposition to the CDA, particularly from Republicans.
Much of the opposition to the counter-terrorism bill was also couched
in those terms -- particularly the opposition to Clinton's continued
attempts to instigate floating wiretaps.
>... So I'll take this to e-mail, and ask
>anyone who wants to follow it there to send me e-mail so I can create a
>mailing list for their convenience.
>
What, and lose my soapbox?
billo
Jan S.
In article <529hsq$n...@tofu.alt.net>, wel...@ns1.ntrnet.net says...
Now, Fred, try carrying your examples a little further. Imagine signing away
your right to *ever* hold a copyright again. Not just for the current work,
whatever it may be, but for everything you may produce in the future. Then
imagine a Constitutional amendment which revokes all product warranties --
past, present, and future.
Certainly copyright and warranty rights are not in the realm of those
inalienable rights that billo spoke of. But perhaps we are able to have these
-- what do you want to call them? -- 'subsidiary' rights (not to be confused
with the same term as used in publisher's contracts) -- *because* we have
certain inalienable rights.
I don't think there is any serious confusion over rights we may
modify/restrict/waive and the ones we can't.
--I can sign away a copyright -- but signing away one copyright does not
restrict my right to hold copyrights on future works.
--I can get one kind of warranty here and a different one in another state,
but isn't the whole point that warranties do exist?
--Joe Blow Perp can waive his Miranda rights today, and next week when he's
arrested again he'll get 'em back (and can waive them again if he wants),
but he can't waive his Miranda rights for good -- no matter how much he
might want to.
--If the police come to my door right now and ask permission to search without
a warrant, I can give them permission, but the next time they come back
(without a warrant) they'll have to ask again, and I have the right to
refuse (actually, I'd send them away because the apartment's a mess, but
that's another story).
I can, if I'm damnfool enough to do so, turn in one of my guns to one of
those silly-assed 'guns for toys' campaigns, but in so doing I do not waive
my right to own other guns.
I think the point I'm trying to make here is that you are comparing apples and
oranges. After I re-read this later, I may change my mind about what I think
I'm trying to say. Some days are like that.
--jan
Fred Welden
In article <52eop8$s...@excelsior.flash.net> Jan S. (ts...@flash.net) wrote:
> In article <529hsq$n...@tofu.alt.net>, wel...@ns1.ntrnet.net says...
> >permitted to restrict and modify one set of things that are called
> >rights as times and circumstances change, they might be permitted to
> >restrict and modify other things that are called rights likewise.
> >
> >Or is there some natural and inalienable copyright and warranty rights that
> >these governmental restrictions infringe upon to varying degrees? Maybe
> >the problem is that folks ought to be up in arms about current copyright
> >laws and the strange variance of warranty rights from state to state,
> >and they aren't. In which case, you can see how we've been lulled into
> >misunderstanding how our rights work--consumer activism and the Bern
> >convention on copyrights being a sort of slippery slope, as it were.
> Now, Fred, try carrying your examples a little further. Imagine signing away
> your right to *ever* hold a copyright again. Not just for the current work,
> whatever it may be, but for everything you may produce in the future. Then
> imagine a Constitutional amendment which revokes all product warranties --
> past, present, and future.
But we do change the law regarding copyrights from time to time. Not
just contractual yielding of this or that aspect of copyright on a given
work, but changes to the nature of all future copyrights on works not
yet created.
But you allow that below:
> Certainly copyright and warranty rights are not in the realm of those
> inalienable rights that billo spoke of. But perhaps we are able to have these
> -- what do you want to call them? -- 'subsidiary' rights (not to be confused
> with the same term as used in publisher's contracts) -- *because* we have
> certain inalienable rights.
> I don't think there is any serious confusion over rights we may
> modify/restrict/waive and the ones we can't.
>
> --I can sign away a copyright -- but signing away one copyright does not
> restrict my right to hold copyrights on future works.
> --I can get one kind of warranty here and a different one in another state,
> but isn't the whole point that warranties do exist?
> --Joe Blow Perp can waive his Miranda rights today, and next week when he's
> arrested again he'll get 'em back (and can waive them again if he wants),
> but he can't waive his Miranda rights for good -- no matter how much he
> might want to.
>
> --If the police come to my door right now and ask permission to search without
> a warrant, I can give them permission, but the next time they come back
> (without a warrant) they'll have to ask again, and I have the right to
> refuse (actually, I'd send them away because the apartment's a mess, but
> that's another story).
> I can, if I'm damnfool enough to do so, turn in one of my guns to one of
> those silly-assed 'guns for toys' campaigns, but in so doing I do not waive
> my right to own other guns.
This example isn't exactly parallel to those others. It's more like
saying to the cops "You can search that closet, but not this one." And
frankly, I'm not sure what the law says about that--if you let the cops
search one part of your apartment, can you stop them from searching it all?
Even if the other closet isn't locked?
However, you're on exactly the right track here, and making the point I
want to make--there are things we call "rights," and make a big fuss
about, that are really instances or ways of exercising a more basic right.
Copyright is a manifestation of the right to own property. Warranty
rights are a manifestation of your right to be traded with fairly.
Your Miranda rights are a manifestation of your right to equal
protection under the law (and probably a couple of other basic rights
contribute--I forget all the parts of the Miranda warning). And so on.
We can find other ways to protect those *basic* rights that might
change their outward manifestation completely. Are we stuck with the
manifestations we have today? Is any suggestion that there might be a
better way to afford protection of, e.g., your property rights a sort of
secular heresy?
> I think the point I'm trying to make here is that you are comparing apples and
> oranges. After I re-read this later, I may change my mind about what I think
> I'm trying to say. Some days are like that.
I hope not. The point I was trying to get to is that there are folks
out there defending the apples on the grounds that they are oranges.
But to get more specific, again, we'd have to talk about something
other than copyright, which is a fairly uninteresting case in this
context, and that'd be off-topic for this group. If you want to carry
this further, e-mail me.
[Not that I'm unwilling to debate whether copyright as it stands today
makes sense. I don't think it does, and I think we see frequent abuses
of it as a result. But that's another old thread that got people riled
up without going anywhere, so we probably should let it lie.]
--Fred | wel...@ntrnet.net
| "Made in Dobonia:" your guarantee of quantity.
Mike Huber
Friznitx misc.writing ak 27 Sep 1996 13:45:26 GMT farblik
wel...@ns1.ntrnet.net (Fred Welden)}
> But we do change the law regarding copyrights from time to time. Not
> just contractual yielding of this or that aspect of copyright on a given
> work, but changes to the nature of all future copyrights on works not
> yet created.
The actual copyright law, at any given time, is a crude attempt to
codify the underlying right. The changes are (hopefuly) attepts to
bring the law closer to the underlying right.
(OK, too much Plato...)
-------------------------------------
Roses are red Mike Huber
Violets are blue http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2111
if I were a poet, anaxi...@geocities.com
this would rhyme.
Fred Welden
In article <324fc...@moci.mke.software.rockwell.com> Mike Huber (anaxi...@geocities.com) wrote:
> Friznitx misc.writing ak 27 Sep 1996 13:45:26 GMT farblik
> wel...@ns1.ntrnet.net (Fred Welden)}
> > But we do change the law regarding copyrights from time to time. Not
> > just contractual yielding of this or that aspect of copyright on a given
> > work, but changes to the nature of all future copyrights on works not
> > yet created.
> The actual copyright law, at any given time, is a crude attempt to
> codify the underlying right. The changes are (hopefuly) attepts to
> bring the law closer to the underlying right.
> (OK, too much Plato...)
This was one of the points I was trying to make. And when someone
proposes changing, say, copyright law, that in and of itself is not an
attempt to denigrate the underlying right, nor to deny it to people.
We should examine such proposals in the light of our knowledge of the
underlying right to see how they affect *that*.
Of course, I may have had too much Plato, myself. Although I will say
that I disagreed with some of the things he had to say, and his
geometry was in at least one case a little sloppy, too.
Lorrill Buyens
oli...@cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver), while summoning a demon, chanted :
>Indeed, there is nothing so frightening to the anti-democratic mind
>as the idea of the "huge, unscreened, self-selected" masses having
>power. And it's not just limited to second amendment rights.
I couldn't care less *what* they do, as long as it's not life-threatening
to others.
>And why should we be so quick to reign in this "huge, unscreened,
>self-selected" rabble? Because you *fear* them. You state your
>right to live without *fear* of your neighbor. They make you
>uncomfortable.
I fear guns in the hands of the ill-instructed - *that* makes me
uncomfortable. If you want to carry a gun, fine - go take a
gun-safety class and I'll have no problem with you. But if you
know little or nothing about the proper handling & treatment of
firearms, and you want to carry one anyway, don't be surprised
if I try to keep as great a distance as possible.
>proponent of liberal weapon carry laws. After all,
>states with right to carry laws have a 21% lower overall
>violent crime rate, a 27% lower firearm violent crime rate,
>a 28% lower homicide rate, a 33% lower firearm homicide rate,
>a 3% lower rape rate, a 33% lower robbery rate,
>a 35% lower firearm robbery rate, a 15% lower aggravated
>assault rate and an 18% lower firearm aggravated assault
>rate than other states.
But are carry laws the cause, or the effect, or a related statistic,
or none of the above?
>>"Rights" have to be negotiable when they profoundly interfere with the
>>common good. Yes, nobody likes that fact. But unless you want to live by
>>yourself on an island, young man, you'll just have to live with that
>>balance.
>Rights have to be respected and protected, even when they
>interfere with your convenience and even when they make you
>uncomfortable. Yes, nobody likes that fact. But unless you want
>to live in a prison, my child, you'll just have to stop
>trying to force your neighbors to be slaves to your fear.
"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
Lorrill
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Doctor Fraud |Always believe six|
|Mad Inventor & Purveyor of Pseudopsychology |impossible things |
| Weird Science at Bargain Rates |before breakfast. |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|"Where did Robinson Crusoe go | "On a double |
| with Friday on Saturday night?" - Al Jolson | date?" - Me |
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorrill Buyens
zeroe...@aol.com (ZeroEffort), while summoning a demon, chanted :
>smartened up and bought up all the media in the last thrirty years. like
>there's really a free press these days. how many cities have more than
>one newspaper anymore?
Chicago and Phoenix, to name two...
Lorrill (What do I win? <g>) Buyens
Lorrill Buyens
oli...@cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver), while summoning a demon, chanted :
>Second, let's move on to the idea of inalienable rights. I personally
>swallow the idea that rights are given to each person by his or
>her Creator. Those rights cannot be "given" or "taken away" by
What if there's no "God"? Where do inalienable rights come from
*then*?
Lorrill (My right to free speech comes from *me*, not someone else's
deity <g>) Buyens
Bill Oliver
In article <53ukp8$d...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
Lorrill Buyens <buy...@primenet.com> wrote:
>oli...@cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver), while summoning a demon, chanted :
>
>>Second, let's move on to the idea of inalienable rights. I personally
>>swallow the idea that rights are given to each person by his or
>>her Creator. Those rights cannot be "given" or "taken away" by
>
>What if there's no "God"? Where do inalienable rights come from
>*then*?
>
Not my problem. In my world view, rights are derived from the Creator
and are part and parcel of being human. Derivations from other
sources are, to me, of academic interest only -- and not very
interesting at that.
Of the derivations most commonly invoked in conversations I have with
atheists, utilitarian and secular humanist, both end up assuming some
consensus of the definition of "good." My personal opinion is that
without God, such a definition is arbitrary.
By the way, where *are* you? This thread has been dead for ages.
I will not respond to your gun control stuff at length out of
consideration for MWvillers, who deserve at least a three month rest.
You repeat an argument made months ago which is, of course, incorrect,
and which I answered at length. If there is great demand from
MWV, I will repeat it (heh).
But thanks for playing!
billo
JMingo
In article <540j60$4...@baldhead.cs.unc.edu>, oli...@cs.unc.edu wrote:
>By the way, where *are* you? This thread has been dead for ages.
>I will not respond to your gun control stuff at length out of
>consideration for MWvillers, who deserve at least a three month rest.
Whew. Billo, you are a saint! A grateful newsgroup thanks you.
Jack (Discussion: Do saints ever 'pack heat'?) Mingo
Bill Oliver
In article <543npc$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, JMingo <jmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>Jack (Discussion: Do saints ever 'pack heat'?) Mingo
Rest assured. When the saints go marching in, they will be armed
to the teeth.
billo
Mike Huber
Friznitx misc.writing ak 17 Oct 1996 09:27:32 -0400 farblik
oli...@cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver)}
One of the Borgia's got sainted.
OK, it was a fairly boring administrative sainthood, essentialy for
services rendered, but it was a legitimate, by the book and no
scandals (pretty odd for a Borgia - he was the white sheep of the
family) sainthood.
Sure, some of the services involved included having a few people
tortured and killed, but just at a normal Reformation era rate,
nowhere near the Borgia standard.
Still, I think he has the record for least gentle saint named Francis.