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