[I dare (see note) djf] Second Amendment wimps... don't you deserve the biggest and best?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
Date: September 29, 2004 8:03:27 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: Ip <ip () v2 listbox com>, Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
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 interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

Attachment: dpreed.vcf
Description: