[IP] this is the end of string djf more on How bizarre can it get?? We're about to find out...
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Gordon C. Thomasson, Ph.D." <gthomas1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: September 30, 2004 1:15:49 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on How bizarre can it get?? We're about to find
out...
As a historian who has studied not just the NRA's systematic
false-reading/
propaganda of/about the Second Amendment (which their lawyers have
been very
careful to keep out of the federal courts), but the debates of the
First Congress that
created the Bill of Rights, the Second absolutely does not protect
private gun ownership.
The Founding Fathers' use of the word militia is intentional and was
well considered.
Any contrary argument is absolutely ahistorical and based on either
ignorance, studied
ignorance, or lying.
Secondly, it AIN'T just about bayonet lugs or even banana magazines.
And those are not
the main concern the many police lobbies that supported the ban. If
you have spent any
time around the gun world at all, you have seen kits sold for almost
every "legal" assault
weapon that converts it from semi-automatic to fully automatic. If
you haven't seen them
you either have no knowledge, are lying, or look too much like a cop.
Years ago I saw kits that people had obtained through the mail (M-1
carbines, 1960s;
AK47s, 1970s). I have seen kits for many other weapons since then,
just walking
around pretending to mind my own business, listening and watching at
gun shows
and swap meets. It has always been a barely under-the-counter trade.
It is practiced
in much the same way that crocks for brewing beer were sold during
prohibition (and
you can still find these at antique shows). The pale yellowish-white
crocks had lettered
on the side a "Notice" that federal law prohibited combining the
below-listed ingredients
(a recipe for beer) in that crock, allowing it to ferment, etc.
The ATF Raid on David Koresh (which would not have been a debacle if a
"journalist" had
not called Koresh and warned him the Feds were coming, for which he
absolutely should
have been tried as an accessory before-the-fact to murder), was fully
justified legally in that
Koresh had obtained assault-type weapons and fully automatic
conversion kits, and had,
according to witness-testimony, converted the weapons, and thus would,
without any
question be in violation of federal law. ATF's last initial, "F",
stands for firearms, and they
have the responsibility to enforce the laws against automatic
weapons. ATF men were
murdered by Koresh in the line of duty. Later "mistakes" by the FBI
and/or suicide by
Koresh are ABSOLUTELY irrelevant to the fact that ATF had probable
cause and
legal obligation to do what they did, and that Koresh was in blatant
violation of the law..
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a pacifist and NOT a gun-owner. I became a
pacifist
in the 1960s after a friend employed by the FBI took me shooting and I
drew down
on a mannequin but suddenly knew nothing in the world could move me to
pull the trigger
in real life, though I had fired many weapons at bulls-eye paper
targets and clay pigeons
before that. My very best friend, on the other hand, has several
Glocks, knows how
to use them, and carries them daily in his employment.
Gordon C. Thomasson, Ph.D.
World History Faculty
Broome Community College (SUNY)
David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@xxxxxxxx>
Date: September 29, 2004 2:28:55 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: mo@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] How bizarre can it get?? We're about to find out...
Mike O'Dell wrote:
if INDUCE is passed into law, we'll have the curious situation
where it will be illegal to share a file or (possibly) own an iPod,
but legal to own a military assault rifle.
I admit to not tracking the statistics closely,
but I didn't realize that so many people were being killed with iPods.
I agree with Mike that the Induce Act is hardly a terrific idea, but
I think he's misstating a few points along the way.
First, the current draft of the Induce Act circulated last Friday
only deals with "manufacturing, offering to the public, providing, or
otherwise trafficking in any product or service" -- something that
wouldn't affect you if you already own an iPod or any other product.
Induce targets manufacturers, not end users. You just might not be
able to buy a replacement, that's all. :)
Second, Induce doesn't affect whether sharing an individual file is
legal or not. Mike may be thinking of other bills, like one the House
approved yesterday, that do:
http://news.com.com/House+votes+to+target+P2P+pirates/2100-1028_3
-5387682.html
Third, the law against so-called "assault weapons" is no more
properly named than laws like the Communications Decency Act or the
Patriot Act. Guns targeted by the ban are not more powerful or capable
of more rapid fire than those that remain legal. The law bans certain
firearms because of politically incorrect cosmetic features like
bayonet lugs (random bayonetting of innocents is, you know, a national
plague).
Fourth, the right to "keep" firearms is enshrined in the Bill of
Rights while the right to own an iPod is not as constitutionally
explicit. 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
"The Second Amendment does indeed secure an individual right to keep
and bear arms."
Best,
Declan
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as gthomas1@xxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
-------------------------------------
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/