Licenses (was Re: [PLUG-TALK] Reading, Ragheads, Assholes, and Viruses)

gepr at tempusdictum.com gepr at tempusdictum.com
Mon Jun 28 21:58:23 UTC 2004


Russ Johnson writes:
 > >p.s. I'm currently debating getting a concealed-carry license.  But,
 > >it's against my firm political belief that my right to _carry_ (which,
 > >if you check the etymology, "bear" seems to extrapolate from "bher",
 > >which means "to carry") without informing the neo-fascists that I am,
 > >in fact, carrying.  So, what I _really_ should do is _not_ get the
 > >license but carry anyway.  But, I have to measure the payoff matrix
 > >for breaking this particular law... Perhaps I should build a game
 > >theoretic model that treats the issue?
 > >  
 > >
 > Ah, but is it really against the constitution to register said arms?  
 > And did the founders really mean long rifles when they wrote that 
 > amendment, or did they mean to include pistols? If they meant all arms, 
 > does that mean I can have a nuke?

Well, with all due respect to the founding fathers, I don't know or
care what they intended.  All I can and do care about is the English
I can read and understand... and whatever amount of common sense I 
can bring to the table.

"Arms", in the context of a single, reasonably civilized, Western
individual, most likely would mean "small guns, knives, axes,
grenades, etc."  So, while I, personally, would allow you to have a
nuke if I were king, I don't think nukes fit a common sense definition
of arms that an individual would reasonably own or use.  (Maybe we
could have a nuke-certification test... Anyone who demonstrates that
they can install linux on an OTS machine from Best Buy can own a
nuke!)

When you get to things like tanks, howitzers, turret-mounted 60 mm,
machine guns, and even 15-round handguns, the line can be a bit 
blurry.  Who needs 15 rounds in their 9mm?  If 5 guys attack me and
I can't hit a couple and scare the rest off with 7 rounds, then 
something is amiss. [grin]

But, it doesn't really depend on what the founding fathers _meant_.
It depends on the purpose of that clause as a part of a functioning
democracy, regardless of what they meant or what their purpose was
in putting it in there.

But, the issue of _licenses_ is completely different.  Licenses are 
used to provide measured access to public resources.  Licenses are 
a fascist socio-economic tool that helps those in power control what
happens to the resources around them.  (Note that I don't mean that
in a bad way, really.)  "Gun licenses" == "gun control".  So, if I
have to get a _license_ to carry a gun, then it's not a _right_ to 
carry that gun.  It's a _privilege_ to carry it.

And, the last time I checked, those amendments weren't called 
"the bill of privileges". [grin]

-- 
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                           Hail Eris!
H: 503.630.4505                              http://www.ropella.net/~gepr
M: 971.219.3846                               http://www.tempusdictum.com





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list