[IP] [I dare (see note) djf] Second Amendment wimps... don't you deserve the biggest and best?
Begin forwarded message:
From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@xxxxxxxx>
Date: September 29, 2004 8:03:27 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Ip <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Declan McCullagh <declan@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Second Amendment wimps... don't you deserve the biggest and
best?
For IP if you dare...
Declan wrote:
Like other rights in the BoR, the Second Amendment protects an
individual right to own firearms (arguably) similar to whatever is
being used in the military. See Prof. Eugene Volokh's testimony to
Congress:
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/testimon.htm
Declan's comment prompts me to share that my own personal
interpretation of the second amendment has evolved to a new point: that
it is clearly unconstitional for Congress to prevent me or any other
citizen from keeping and using personal nuclear bombs, chemical
weapons, and other military arms, while it is quite OK for Congress to
bar me from owning a nuclear power plant, a chemical fertilizer plant,
or a pharmaceutical fermentation system.
I am happy that Prof. Volokh agrees with me that the authors of the
second amendment wanted the citizens to have the power to resist by
arms if necessary the full and unrestrained power of the US government
should it become necessary. Given the evolution of technology since
the Bill of Rights was written, its clear that the founders understood
that the citizenry may need to use such weapons against the the modern
"Tories" who have been attempting to carry out their neoconservative
imperial aims by terrorizing those who dissent from their creed of
religious intolerance and their despotic tyrannies.
I suppose some would argue that the drafters of the second amendment
only contemplated the kinds of "arms" that were known at the time, but
then one might argue back that semiautomatic, magazine-fed rifles are
dramatically advanced over flintlock, muzzle loading, single-shot arms,
and were not known at the time either. Why should citizens be limited
in ways that the government is not?
It seems that legal categories and metaphors are far too flexible in
the hands of zealots and ideologues on all sides.
Give that famous Muslim fundamentalist and freedom fighter Timothy
McVeigh a few pocket nukes to play with, and we'll understand much more
clearly what a sensible interpretation of the second amendment ought to
be.
Join me in the NWMDA - they'll have to take the plutonium, tritium,
ricin, and ebola from My Cold, Dead Hands! (Charlton Heston - my prick
is a whole lot bigger than yours!)
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
begin:vcard
fn:David Reed
n:Reed;David
email;internet:dpreed@xxxxxxxx
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard