| From: | Doctor Doom <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Gun Control |
| Date: | Sat, 12 Nov 1994 05:03:05 -0600 |
(This message is especially for all the kind souls who claimed to miss my
my convoluted communicative conveyance -- you may live to regret such words.)
Normally, I would have far better sense than to involve myself in
such an inflammatory topic ... but I am alternating between intense pain
and grogginess from the analgesics, and hence I cannot be considered to be
cogitating rationally:
I. Gun Control
Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment II
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, Historians and political scientists inform us that the Founding Fathers
intended for this amendment to act, in part with others, as a preventative
measure against too much power being accumulated in the federal government.
At the time, Militia, composed of CITIZEN soldiers, were the instruments of
the States (note the wording: "State" meaning the Thirteen Original, not the
federal "state"); the federal government commanding the Army and Navy.
This arming of citizens was seen as a preventative measure by which the States
could effectively combat (if it came to contest of arms) the encroachment of
the federal government over the rights and privileges of the people, as the
Founding Fathers apparently considered the States to be the true bastion of
liberty in the fledgling nation.
SIDE NOTE: This perspective could be incorporated into the old argument of
States' Rights, construed as casting the States in the role of defenders of
the common man against a rapidly growing influence of the government.
Although, I am not necessarily espousing this interpretation.
Also, consider the times ... the Continental Army was not as an imposingly
huge organization as it is today. A single, or more likely, several states'
militias would have a quite decent chance against the federal force in a
crisis. Hence, given this fact, this interpretation might not be perceived
as so farfetched as it would otherwise be in a contemporary setting.
Moreover, I would add -- appropriating a line of logic oft utilized by the
defenders of the sanctity of the First Amendment -- that the location of
second in the sequence of the Bill of Rights is significant, as it may be
said to shed light upon the priority which it held in the minds of the
framers of the Constitution.
This interpretation is not one -- in recent times -- which the Congress
or the Supreme Court (or, for that matter, the President) has adopted. I
merely mention it to achieve Historical perspective.
What I find so fascinating about this topic is that those who typically revile
Gun Control opponents and ridicule their position as extremist and taking too
many liberties with the interpretation of the Constitution are the SAME
individuals who spontaneously begin to salivate like ravening wolves when
the slightest hint of "censorship" is raised. After which, they immediately
decry the perpetrators and protect the First Amendment with all the dogged
determination of religious zealots, as thought 'twere a Holy Writ.
Sounds like a clash of equally fervent, but divergently polarized, beliefs.
As to the practicality or feasibility of Gun Control, here is my opinion:
Gun Control is typically validated by its proponents by its purpose to
counter criminal acts conducted with firearms, that is to say to either
frustrate or completely block their efforts of acquiring ordinance in
the first place.
It may therefore be said that the notion of the efficacy of legislation
which prevents or inhibits the sale of firearms must necessarily proceed
from the assumption that at least the majority of criminals acquire their
weapons in a legitimate manner. This does not appear to coincide with
reality, exemplified by the localities which boast extremely strict gun
sale regulations along with appallingly elevated murder rates.
Consequently, the case may be made that they are considerably less effective
than it might otherwise seem upon initial consideration of the issue. One is
therefore severely hampering the legal efforts of citizens to acquire
weaponry, a right purportedly secured by the Constitution.
II. Von Herrn Ustica:
>the militray made up by? People just like you and I. I doubt highly that
>the military would ever take arms against the American populace. Would
>you blindly kill American civilians because a order came from your
>superiors? Not me. I would say (this is a VERY rough guesstimate) that
>1/3 to 1/2 the military would bail and join the armed civilians.
>Hopefully it will never come to this. Anyway just my $0.02.
Ah, History indicates the answer to this issue is: Not necessarily.
Where is the perceived threat? Is the mob a threat to the government
which the Army loyally serves? Or is the government a threat to the
citizenry from which the members of the Army hail?
The military is used to put down rebellion; hence, where does the
loyalty of the military lie? To the people or to its sovereign, be
it a legislative assembly, an executive officer, or a monarch?
At this juncture, I wish to make it abundantly clear that my purpose
is not to impugn the honor or cast aspersions on the loyalty of the
United States' fine military establishment, but that such is the issue.
Throughout the centuries following the cessation of the monopoly over
combat enjoyed by the Noble class and the Gentry -- Knights -- especially
with the advent of the pike phalanx, peasants were the group which was
primarily volunteered, recruited, or conscripted into national militaries
-- although there were examples of citizen-soldiers plus career noble
officers. Even the much revered Duke of Wellington said of his own men,
"Look at them, they're the scum of the earth!" The Prussian monarch
Frederick the Great maintained that "A soldier should be more afraid of
his officers than the enemy."
Despite these humble, rustic origins as of the lower social strata, these
military establishments were not only utilized for the purposes of
prosecuting wars abroad but also were brought to bear on the population
during periods of civil unrest. Conscripted peasants verses civilian
peasants ... life in the military might have been slightly easier
(depending on the Army of which you speak) but it was far more fraught
with immediate peril. In some cases, the only tangible difference was
that one side was more organized and wore uniforms, the /people/ were
exactly the same.
Various peasant revolts, the revolutions of 1790s, 1830, 1848, 1849 were
almost all put down with admirable dispatch. The crack-down in Tiannamen
Square had the chilling semantic paradox of the People's Army being used
to crush the People.
The French Revolution is remarkable (although not wholly unique) in the
regard in that a goodly sum of the military /did/ in fact side with the
insurgents. Lafayette was a Royal Army officer who elected to side with
the Revolution during its earlier, conspicuously saner period.
NOTE: In line with the earlier argument, the celebrated storming of the
Bastille by the Paris Mob was /not/ for the purpose of freeing political
prisoners, despite popular perceptions to the contrary: Discovered within
there was a grand total of less than ten, if I recollect accurately. The
populace was seeking to arm themselves with weapons which would be found
in the reviled fortress' arsenal.
There are also the largely peaceful collapse (relatively speaking, of course
-- it could have been far worse) of the Eastern European regimes during and
subsequent to 1989, in which members of the military often lent a hand.
Further, in one particularly bizarre twist, the same Red Army which played
a role in the abortive Soviet coup d'etat and almost directed to oust the
defiant Yeltzin from his barricaded stronghold in Moscow was the same force
used to extricate a faction of hardliners in the Russian Parliament building.
The United States' military and the National Guard have both been utilized
for the putting down insurrection by the populace (or civil disorder, if you
will). Riots, strikes, civil disobedience have not all been quelled by the
local constabulary, some required the presence of the military: The Whiskey
Rebellion following the Revolution, the Bonus Army's march on Washington, D.C.
during the Great Depression (World War I veterans verses active soldiers),
the great number of riots during the turbulent 1960s, and numerous strikes by
unions of dissatisfied workers.
Or consider the War Between the States, described as brother against brother,
and 'twas so. Sufficient loyalty was capable of being fostered for the cause
of the various sides that the numerous similarities and heritage of the two
parties was effectively discounted for the purposes of the bloody contest of
arms.
I would submit that previous to the receipt of the circumstances and
context of event cannot claim with certainty which direction the military
establishment shall adopt in a crisis, and certainly I would be quite
reluctant to formulate any percentages in absence of concrete data, one
would be runneth well before one's carriage to market.
It shall be determined by the military itself in ascertaining to whom shall
its loyalty be ascribed and where it perceives the threat to be.
Colonel Count von Hohenzollern und von Doom, DMSc, DSc, PhD.
Doom Technologies & Weapon Systems -- Dark Thought Publications
>>> Working on solutions best left in the dark.
<<<
[ Doctor Doom : jch8169@*******.tamu.edu ]
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"Among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be
despised."
-- Niccolo Machiavelli
