I'm reposting Mr. Milne's (slightly edited) comments from an earlier thread here because he articulates my thoughts on this subject almost precisely.

I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on this topic too.

======================================================================

At one point Rosie O'Donnell(sp) stated that the purpose of the second amendment was for the colonists to have MUSKETS in 1800 when the British were coming and NOT for us to have rapid firing assault weapons in 2000.

I am astonished at the AMZING level of ignoirance that she displays. It is truly breathtaking.

Number one: She bases her arguement on the level of technological difference between then and now, when that is not the issue at all. The issue was the level of technology of the former day citizens as opposed to their government and our present day level of technology as opposed to OUR government.

The British had muskets, the colonists had muskets. We have assault weapons our government has WILDLY more technologically advanced weapons.

The colonists were in a dead heat with the British. We are at a distinct disadvantage.

Second: O'Donell does not understand that the second amendment was not inserted to protect the rights of hunters. It was put in to recognize that citizens have a right to take up arms against their own government when it becaome tyrannical. They must have the capability to stop the tyranny by force of arms if necessary.

Third: It is clear that O'Doneel has a typical liberal view of government; that government is basically good and does good things for people. This is false. While for the most part well-meaning, government is always an evil. It will always tend to usurp more and more power. And every time it takes upon another power, it reduces personal liberty. It does not do this wholesale, or sub-moronic liberals would also see it. It does it by stealthy encroahments that are hardly seen at all and always with wonderful well-meaning excuses: "For the children", "For the homeless", "For the poor". All along it is NOT the function of civil governenmt to address these things.

The sole end of ANY legitimate government is for the protection and safety of the liberties of the citizens.

It is NEVER the end of any legitimate governmentot to see that there is full employment, that citizens are fed, or that any particular interest group has their demands met.

It is NOT the legitimate business of government because every time they meet the 'need' of one particular group they AUTOMATICALLY infringe upon the liberty of another.

Well meaning or not, when the Federal government undertakes to 'feed' certain people, they MUST ***TAKE*** that money from another citizen. That is stealing. The government has NO resources of its own. Its resources are taken from the people. It is wholly inappropriate for any number of people to think it is a good idea to feed hungry people by passing a law taking money away from one man who has earned it and giving it to another man who has not.

This is not to be un-compassionate. It is to recognize that charity is to come from society freely and not legislated and enforced at the point of a gun.

The more that a government ledgislates social action the more that freely undertaken social actions disappear. If one were to argue that if the government did not undertake it then we would fall apart.....then I say that we were morally bankrupt and DESERVE to fall apart.

Every single government action that is not expressly in line with delegated constitutional authority usurps personal liberty.

And THAT was the whole reason behind the second amendement. It recognized that the government is a machine that WILL incontrovertibly usurp all personal liberty. It is only a matter of time.

And that is exactly why we must never have our rights to firearm ownership challenged.

Paul Milne

-- Paul Milne (feinfo@halifax.com), January 18, 2000.

-- Yan (no@no.no), January 19, 2000

Answers

Do you really, honestly, believe that the 2nd amendment was written for the protection of the rights and interests of John Q Public? Remember, at the time of writing, the franchise only applied to white male landowners who had an economic axe to grind.

A cynical outside observer might suggest that it was more along the lines of the mediaeval English laws that banned recreational sports and made practice with the longbow mandatory. The purpose was to provide a plentiful supply of cannon fodder to send to France to grab more land for the minority ruling classes.

Granted, a lot of soldiers did make a personal fortune (at the expence of the French) and it did lead to slightly more emancipation of the peasantry than in (e.g.) France. But not much more, and not for long.

Fascinating as this debate is, I keep forgetting what the connection with Y2K is. ;)

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), January 19, 2000.

I watched a PBS program at 12:00 midnight about the slaughter in the Balkans in 1995. (The reason Cilnton was forced to act.)

Anyone who saw that pathetic unfolding needs no further argument about the merit of private defense. The day prior to one village slaughter, all guns were turned in after the men were guarenteed that they would be safe if they obeyed, but destroyed if they did not.

They obeyed. Within two days, all but two men were dead.

'nuff said.

-- Joseph Almond (sa2000@webtv.net), January 19, 2000.

Read "Freedom in Chains" by Bovard (I think the author is John Bovard or Bolvard?). There is alot of research in this book, including a great many quotes. He also wrote a book called "Lost Rights" which I have yet to read.

-- Darla (dnice@hgo.net), January 19, 2000.

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government" - Thomas Jefferson

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." - James Madison

"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the united States who are peaceable Citizens from keeping their own Arms." - Sam Adams

Paul...excellent post. Yes. I think you will enjoy reading the following white paper concerning, just 'how' and to what extent the People's Rights have been usurped. It is truly frightening...but well worth the read. 'Important matters deserve close attention.'

http://www.bashar.com/GSP/sovereign.htm

Enjoy...and I hope this paper helps clarify some of the issues.

-- Steve (SMeyers33@aol.com), January 19, 2000.

Milne's views on government have always echoed my own. When was the last time you spoke with your children about the Constitution of the United States of America? I'd like to see my tax dollars spent on television ads reminding so called 'parents' to do THAT once in a while. I doubt my two children will be able to do much without a little help. Standing in my voting booth, always reminds me of pissing in the wind.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), January 19, 2000.

Ever since the American War of 1861 - 1865, constitutional law, while theoretically interesting, has been practically a non-issue

-- Karl (valleycable@earthlink.net), January 19, 2000.

Myself, I have yet to truly study the historical record on the right of citizen's to own, possess, brandish, and use firearms... or to reflect deeply on whether such is essential to the cause of Freedom, today and tomorrow. Some say the militia performed poorly in the revolutionary war and I believe this was General Washington's opinion. Supposedly, Jefferson was greatly embarassed by the Virginia militia. I do think, however, it is romantic for me to imagine that I as an individual could effect political events with whatever gun (rifle, shotgun, or handgun) I chose to arm myself with... againt any supposed tyranny. I sometimes fear, however, my vote is ineffectual in the same manner.

Is government evil? Is government good? What is good government? Is bad government better than no government? What is a more perfect union and is such aim the best political end? Can human government ever rise above the evils that are in the hearts of its individual officer and members? What does freedom mean? These are just some of the questions that every generation must ask and attempt to answer for themselves. I imagine that the attempts to find answers are never easy nor will our best attempts ever satisfy everyone. With reluctance, I submit that government is necessary, and bad government is better than none. Yet, I do not imagine I would abide by tyranny or injustices.

To be against tyranny, in my feeble mind, is not to be against human government. Tyranny is but a bad and violent imitation of human government in which the common good is no longer served, and the purpose and fate of men and women are subjugated to the purpose of a few or one. Whether or not it can be said that we are governed by tyrants when the interests of a few are better served though the common good also be served is a question that we continue to ask. Certainly, the neo-Marxists ala Marcuse and the other Franfurt school boys (at the turn of this century) have asked this question with passionate voices. How the problematic is best addressed remains to be seen.

What is our purpose? What does Freedom mean? What is the common good? How shall the common good be served more effectively by human government-- if it can be served more effectively by human government? These are some the the questions that I entertain. I think these are questions they need to be entertained together as much as separately.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), January 19, 2000.

If you read your American History, you'll find it was JQ Public, as well as the white male landowners who fought and died to establish this country. JQ Public at the time included Blacks and Whites, French, Native Americans, and other nationalities. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were white males, sure. BFD! Almost all of them lost everything they owned, their freedom, or their lives because of it.

How do you explain Switzerland then? Every adult is required to have a machine gun available. Every adult is a member of the militia, just like they are required to be here. The crime rate is one of the lowest in the world, and you never hear of some idiot going off and shooting up a school do you? Few sane generals would ever invade a country where the populace is armed to the teeth like this. Even Hitler knew this during the 1930's & 1940's.

The most important fact here, the country is ruled by a government who fears it's citizens, as it should be. When citizens fear their government, they become more like subjects or slaves. If everyone who wants one has a gun, then crime and oppression drop to minimal levels.

-- Powder (Powder47keg@aol.com), January 19, 2000.

I'll get back to Milne's original post when I have time - there are a few questions I'd like to ask him.

It is true that the government should serve. It is hypocritical for the government to be armed and not expect its citizens to be.

There is growing pressure in the UK for every police officer to be armed (some are heavily armed, but only if they are aware that there suspects are). The Police are concerned that if they arm themselves then all the criminals will arm themselves as well. The Police will be able to protect themselves from an armed suspect (there have been tragic cases where they haven't been able to), but the likelihood of encountering an armed suspect will be higher. The net effect would probably be minimal; armed Police would not be any safer. In the UK there is no need to arm yourself against the government because the government is not armed - the logic is exactly the same, but it argues the case for not owning a gun in these circumstances.

Regarding Switzerland, might I suggest that the absence of crime is not due to the existence of guns, but because the country is extraordinarily wealthy and there is virtually full employment. I am not arguing that poverty justifies crime, but it is a cause of crime.

I live in an island community that is virtually crime free, and no- one owns guns (except for shooting, competition etc.). The reason why we have no crime is because there is virtually full employment (its an offshore financial centre), and most people are able lead successful lives.

I do not believe that the compulsory ownership of firearms in Switzerland has anything to do with the zero crime rate.

-- Matthew (mdpope@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

--PUH-LE-E-EZE on England not being armed. they have a LONG history of exporting violence through the use of force all over the globe. They only slowed down some when they started gettin their butts kicked. Heck, there's some evidence leaking out about SAS being involved in Waco! The money powers in england use guns all the time, both domestically and in "occupied" areas. No matter how much you dress up a dictatorship and call it "socialism", it's still a dictatorship. Granted, lots worse places, but the people there are about powerless to do anything but b*tch, bigmoney and their armed agents rule there.

Same as here, but at least here, if push comes to shove, we do have * options*.

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), January 19, 2000.

"the absence of crime is not due to the existence of guns, but because the country is extraordinarily wealthy and there is virtually full employment. I am not arguing that poverty justifies crime, but it is a cause of crime."

Switzerland's unemployment rate is apporximately 3.6% only one percentage point better that the US. The FBI's own statistics have repeatedly shown that in states where carry of a concealed weapon is legalized, crime DROPS!

Switzerland - GDPper capita: purchasing power parity$26,400 (1998 est.)

United States - GDPper capita: purchasing power parity$31,500 (1998 est.)

How is it that this seemingly less well off country can claim wealth is a deterrent to crime? It doesn't compute.

"armed Police would not be any safer"

I can hear it now: "Stop or I'll blow my whistle again!"

-- Powder (Powder47keg@aol.com), January 19, 2000.

Calm down Zog,

I did not say that the English were not armed.

The UK is the 3rd largest exporter of arms in the world, and the largest exporter of anti-personnel mines.

The SAS probably were involved in WACO (they get involved everywhere else).

All I was suggesting was that the justification that everyone uses here (a VALID one) for upholding the 2nd Ammendment and resisting moves to confiscate their guns was not applicable to the UK.

Every government has an intelligence unit, a special forces unit, and so on, but not every government puts armed officers on the streets. Of course there are parts of the UK that are rife with organised crime - if the Police know they are dealing with these people then they will arm themselves, but nearly all first contact situations between the Police and public are unarmed.

If the police stop me in the street, they will not be armed. If the police come to my house, they will not be armed. If the police pull me over in my car, they will not be armed.

If the police know I am a armed drug dealer, then they will burst into my house at 3am in the morning and have several semi-automatic machines guns pointing up my nostrils before I have a clue what is going on.

Of course my government will use force if need be, but the fact remains that it is still largely accountable. If they get their information wrong then they are in serious trouble; the Metropolitan Police were publicly humiliated by their failure to bring the murderers of Stephen Lawrence to justice. They are not immune, and neither is the government.

The UK just had a set of crime statistics published today, and all crime is up for the first time in 6 years (and a big increase in violent crime).

I am not claiming that the UK is some sort of Utopia, but am I suggesting that we believe (probably falsely) that our government and police are still answerable to the public, and that therefore we do not need to defend ourselves from them. All I was suggesting was that the biggest reason people to justify being armed(as a militia, to check the government) was a reason that justified not being armed in the UK. If the UK govt. decides to issue firearms to every police officer then this situation will change. It is why many people in the force want to remain unarmed.

I am beginning to wonder if I should start posting anonymously again (or not at all).

-- Matthew (mdpope@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

Yes Powder, arming the Police would not make them any safer.

Arming the police the would make them more effective, but it would turn them into a target. That is what the police are concerned about.

"Stop or I'll blow my whistle...." "Stop or I'll shout Stop again...."

I've lost count of how many times I've seen that, but it is an argument about effectiveness, not safety. Safety is what the Police are worried about.

Why do some people think that possessing a gun makes you indestructable?

"No-one will shoot me if I have a gun" - it's absurd. The Police know that if they routinely arm, they will encounter more armed criminals, and become a potential target more often. The numbers of dead Police officers will increase if they arm themselves.

Is that such an illogical suggestion?

-- Matthew (mdpope@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

Ideas about general wealth, employment, and gun ownership on crime are interesting to consider. How about culture and religion as additional factors? And I'd also be interested if anyone knowns recent numbers on crime in general, violent crime, wealth, employment, and gun ownership for other countries such as Japan?

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), January 19, 2000.

It's not that any weapon makes you indestructible, (some vidiot kids may think so) Nothing could be further from fact. It's the deterrent factor that makes a criminal (or a government for that matter) think twice about doing something to harm you. Maybe in your community there are more cops, or since it's an island, there is no easy way to escape if you commit a crime?

I did say the crime rates dropped, I didn't say crime disappeared. In any country or state there are always going to be a few idiots that will commit crimes.

"The Police know that if they routinely arm, they will encounter more armed criminals, and become a potential target more often. The numbers of dead Police officers will increase if they arm themselves."

Would you clarify this statement? It seems to me that in Britain, since gun control is so absurdly strict over there, that the only reason for more dead cops would be lack of training.

-- Powder (Powder47keg@aol.com), January 19, 2000.

Paul is as usual basically on target. I always enjoy (and find usefully thought-provoking) his posts. For a related piece, try "The Bill of No Rights". Here is the URL; anyone want to make the link, be my guest.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/9427/norights.html

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

BTW - Matthew: "semi-automatic machines guns" do not exist. Never have, never will.

-- Powder (Powder47keg@aol.com), January 19, 2000.

Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), January 19, 2000.

Aptly put, Dennis. Another version is that gun control is just using a steady hand (remember to slowly pull, not jerk) when some punk decides to cut government out of the loop on "income redistribution" and starts to break into your house.

www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

What I find unsettling about the anti-gun control sorts is not so much that they want to be allowed to carry a gun, but that they often think they need to carry one (for their own safety?). I'm glad I don't live in a place where such a need is felt (at least by most people, anyway).

-- Richard Dymond (rjdymond@hotmail.com), January 20, 2000.

What is truely sad is that so many places are paranoid about guns. I thank God that I live in any area that has extremely little violence of about any kind. I'll give you a pair ofperfect examples of how little crime there is here. My carkeys are outside in the switch (and probably my purse laying on the seat, knowing me), and I leave my front door unlock, if not standing open, when I leave the house. I know, I'm nuts....but then again, I also live in an area where I have seen people walk into the local grocery store with a 30-30 TC in a holster and not one person thought a thing about it.

Gun control is having control over YOUR gun, not someone telling you that you don't "need" it or that you'll hurt yourself if you have a "gun".

me

-- me (me@me.com), January 20, 2000.

Let me show you by way of example just one more reason why anti-gun zealots are misguided fools.

Number of physicians in the U.S. ..........................700,000 Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year.............120,000 Accidental deaths per physician ..............................0.171

Number of gun owners in the U.S. ........................80,000,000 Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) ...1, 500

Accidental deaths per gun owner ..........................0.0000188

Therefore, individual doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners

---------------------

When was the last time you heard some blabber-mouthed anti-gun zealot make one mention of something that caused many more multiples of deaths than guns do?

Never.

If anti-gun nuts were REALLY concerned MERELY over the number of needless deaths caused, then they would immediately stop wasting time on the MINISCULE number of gun related deaths and move on to areas where many times greater numbers of accidental deaths occur.

So it seems that they are primarily interest in the MEANS of the deaths *alone* and are offended by GUNS and not the numbers of deaths.

Mis-use of automobiles cause many many many time more deaths. Alcohol related driving fatalities are far far far more numerous than gun related deaths. But, you hear not ONE peep out of them concerning conditions that kill many times more people needlessly.

Anti-gun nuts are morons from the ground floor up. They have absolutely no idea about why it is necessary for a citizen to be armed for the day that the present government is finally recognized as the tyrant that it is.

If they were truly serious they would not even MENTION gun related deaths, as they are in a tremendous minority in relation to deaths caused by other means.

One other thing that that ridiculous Rosie O'donnell brought up. Registration. She said that cars are registered so why should guns not be registered? Does registration have anything to do with preventing deaths or merely identifying an owner? If someone is intent upon using a gun does registration deter them in any way? Don't make me laugh.

The only thing registration does is register guns held by law abiding citizens. Criminals can obtain guns at any time in any place without registration.

The fact that a gun, identified in a crime, was registered to Joe Smith has nothing at all to do with whether Joe Smith committed the crime nor did it have anything to do with preventing the crime in the first place. Registration only hassles law abiding citizens and has zero effect of crime prevention.

I have nothing against a gun check within 24 hours to try to prevent guns from falling into the hands of felons. If the lawful authorities can not come up with a functioning system that will NOT take more than 24 hours, that is THEIR problem. Anything else is an infringement upon my rights.

Paul Milne

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 20, 2000.

I have nothing against a gun check within 24 hours to try to prevent guns from falling into the hands of felons. If the lawful authorities can not come up with a functioning system that will NOT take more than 24 hours, that is THEIR problem. Anything else is an infringement upon my rights.

Sorry, Paul, I have to disagree with you on this. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution says, and I quote:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What does "infringed" mean? It means "to break in or encroach in or upon" (OED). It seems abundantly clear from this definition that ANY interference with the right of the people to be armed is "infringement". Thus, if we are going to pay attention to the Bill of Rights, the only valid rule of law is that ANYONE may keep and bear arms at will, without being subjected to harassment or infringement by any so-called authority.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), January 20, 2000.