| From: | Doctor Doom <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | New Installment in Cointinuing Lecture Series (I)... |
| Date: | Tue, 18 Apr 1995 05:08:45 -0500 |
VOICES FROM THE LIST . . .
`Your words can never be believed,' said Harlequin.
`I am not words, Har'lea'quinn. I am emotion, I am passion, I am what you
feel.'
Harlequin was silent.
`And you feel it, do you not?'
`I feel nothing.'
`You can taste referenced tomes in the air.'
`I taste nothing.'
`Smell the pages turned on the wind.'
`The air is still.'
`Hear him laughing in the silence, keys typing frantically away, calling
for his due.'
`I hear only your maddening voice.'
The figure lowered its arm. `You lie to yourself.'
Harlequin rushed toward the figure. `I do not!' he howled, his hands
clenched into sweaty fists. He shook them at the robed figure. `It is too
late!'
`It is coming.'
Harlequin spun away, then rounded back on his antagonist. `It is too late!
The thread has died! He cannot be coming!'
`You lie to yourself.'
`It is you who lies to me!'
`As I have said.'
Harlequin turned again and stumbled back toward the
fire. `It is too late . . .' he mumbled. `Nothing is right. . .I cannot
understand. . .'
`You do not wish to understand. The list members play with concepts they
do not always fully comprehend because no one teaches them.'
Harlequin whirled back to face the figure. `And telling them would stop
them? I think not.'
The figure shifted. `The denizens have discussed their little discussion,
Har'lea'quinn. They provoked thoughts and responses in this world, and the
others. Now they pay the price.'
Harlequin grasped his head and shook it. `No. . .It is too late. . .'
`You will still be saying that when he inundates your account with his
historical treatise and causes your mail buffer to scream in praternatural
agony. Have you fallen so far, Har'lea'quinn? Have you forgotten the
horror?'
*evil laughter*
Meine Kameraden:
One had to suspect/fear as such would occur ... I know this is quite
belated, but as mentioned in a previous missive, my schedule was thrown into
utter chaos from the necessity to attend a funeral earlier last week.
I. Gun Control -------------------------------------------------------
Constitution of the United States, 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 (ages generally held to be
'tween 12 and 55) locally mustered and administrated, were the instruments of
the States (note the wording: "State" meaning the Thirteen Original, not the
federal "state"). The national government commanding the Army and Navy.
This arming of citizens was seen as a means of security 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
freedom in the fledgling nation. Hence, it may be said that the government
was denied the ability to deny firearms to the citizenry as the necessity for
owning said firearms may find its genesis in the government itself.
The States' Rights argument could be construed as casting the States in the
role of defenders of the common man against a rapidly growing influence of the
national government; although, I am not necessarily supporting that
interpretation.
Contemporary times reveal individuals still adhering to the right to "keep and
bear arms" as necessary to safeguard their position in regards to the
government.
II. Mistrust of the Government ------------------------------------------
Many individuals find it most peculiar that Americans appear so skeptical and
e'en paranoid when it matters turn to the relationship which the citizen has
vis-a-vis his government. Why did the Founding Fathers include provisions
which could be construed to assure the possibility of armed insurrection
against the government they were creating? And why do contemporary Americans
claim that the ownership of firearms is a measure preventative of the
government "getting too uppity"? To understand this rather unusual yet fairly
pervasive sentiment, one must perceive the country's origins and history.
America as a sovereign political unit was initiated with the concept of an
antagonistic relationship between citizen/subject and government/monarch.
America is a synthetically constructed nation, born of armed rebellion against
its mother country, one which had not even founded all of the thirteen colonies
in question but possessed not a few as spoils of war, at a time in the
Enlightenment (also known as The Age of Reason), where the concept of the
Individual was most lauded and emphasized.
The advent of the recent unpleasantness in the Revolutionary War served to only
emphasize some elements of such a philosophy. The War was perceived as a
uprising against the arbitrary and unjust acts of a centralized and powerful
monarchy, not so much against the parliamentary monarchy which was the
political state of Britain at the time. These were a contemplative people who
elected upon this "revolutionary" decision to become independent of their
sovereign, and as such, composed a document to outline and expound upon the
/raison d'etre/ for the rebellion, and proceed to provide justification within
philosophical tenets, asserting that not only do the Colonies, indeed Man,
possess a right to rebel under unjust circumstances, but rather such is their
Duty if such circumstances come to light. I shall not bore you with the
intricacies of such circumstances but they dwell decidedly upon Locke's concept
of inalienable rights (a novel idea) such as "life, liberty, and the
pursuit of property" as contrasted to "tyranny."
Consequently, centralized power and government authority left rather a bad
taste in the mouths of many political philosophers at the time, considering
that such organs of government are not bodies in which one may experience
confidence. The original Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (the
document from which we acquired the name for this political unit, The United
States of America) conspicuously lacked a discrete executive branch, feeling
that only the states could be appropriately trusted with governing authority
over themselves.
The only federal powers delegated the federal Congress were ones which the
states could not administer individually, e.g., wage war, establish uniform
currency, and treat with foreign nations. Actual "federal" or
"confederal"
action required considerable effort and cooperation on the part of the former
colonies. The end result was a great deal of bickering on the part of the
participants and decidedly little being accomplished -- not to state that there
were not meritorious achievements nonetheless.
The paralysis of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation eventually
led to a convention to be held for the amending and modification of the
Articles in Philadelphia. Among the first ideas to be scrapped by a number of
the attendees, for good or for bad, was that the Articles were, in fact, to be
kept in amended form. Rather, they dispatched the idea of maintaining the old
government in favor of promulgating an entirely new system.
Even so, with the advent of the Constitution -- which, in fairness, required a
certain degree of propaganda and heavy-handedness on the part of its supporters
to achieve its ratification -- and the subsequent Bill of Rights (in fact, many
objected to the new Constitution on the basis of the fact that a Bill of Rights
was not inherent to the document as ratified), there were elements which
evidenced considerable defense against arbitrary action on part of the
government, e.g., several provisions regarding judicial prosecution,
quartering of troops, excessive punishment.
SIDENOTE -----------------------------------------------------------------
I draw your attention to the fact that contained within the Bill of Rights
there is no actual mention of "separation of church and state" or "right to
privacy." Both are subsequent popular interpretations written following the
actual passage of the legislation.
Historians inform us that Amendment I was intended to avert the possibility of
a Federal Church, as with the Anglican Church in England. There were, in fact,
State Churches existent at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The
famous statement about Amendment I creating "a wall of separation between
Church and State" was actually authored by Thomas Jefferson. This was finally
made legal precedent applicable to both Federal and State government in the
1947 _Everson v. Board of Education_ decision which stated that the "no
establishment" clause held to the States owing to Amendment XIV and not
surprisingly drew heavily from the writings of Jefferson and Madison it its
composition.
The Right to Privacy was an opinion authored by Supreme Court Chief Justice
Earl Warren (served 1953-1969), a jurist (in)famous for his pioneering the
revolutionary new stance in the judiciary's role in society and law which has
subsequently been dubbed, "judicial activism." In the 1965 case _Griswold v.
Connecticut_ Chief Justice Warren claimed that extracted from the rights and
privileges granted in the Bill of Rights as a whole (especially the First,
Fourth, and Fifth), there was the /implied/ right of Privacy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three in particular which concern us: Amendments IX, X, I, and II.
They are, respectively, an assertation which states that merely because a
right is not enumerated upon in the document does not mean said right is
denied a citizen; all rights not specifically granted to the United States
and not specifically denied the States are said to be retained by the States
and consequently the people; prohibition of a state religion, the freedom of
speech, the (printing) press, peaceable assembly, and petition of grievances;
and the citizenry being able to maintain and bear arms.
The final two were ones which one would consider essential were one two
prosecute an insurrection against the government as the Continental Congress
had against Great Britain.
TANGENT -------------------------------------------------------------------
To be perfectly frank, the colonials did not successfully bring the British
Army to its knees in the course of the Revolutionary War. To be sure, there
were victories, but the the Americans did not "beat" the British; rather,
they "beat them off of them." The prosecution of the war did not proceed so
swimmingly as expected for the British, and in the end, especially with the
revelation of the lending of elements of French support (the motivation, of
course, was to force Britain into circumstances which demanded its attentions
quite far from France) the consideration was that the losses accrued exceeded
the benefits were they willing to truly expend the forced conceived necessary
to crush the rebellion.
In truth, the British could have done it. As mentioned, the British Army was
one of the most adept fighting forces at the time AFTER the great Prussian Army
of course. Furthermore, the Royal Navy was quite potent, although it did not
yet truly control the Sea. (A myth fostered by modern American textbooks is
that England's rule of the sea was an innovation which began with the
destruction of the Spanish Armada in 1588. What is more accurate is that it
began to expand and was finally and undeniable asserted following the victory
at Trafalger) Still, e'en had they achieved victory in America, the expense
encountered would have been inordinate for such a purpose. Not quite worth it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Result: In the popular consciousness there is an essential mistrust and
fear of government encroachment o'er citizen's rights (going so far as to
claim that said rights and privileges are are both basic and inherent to
Humanity) as exemplified by the perception of tyrannical rule of the King of
England and an ideal adhered to in the execution of the adoption of their
own government.
Byproductively, it also has the effect that to outlaw or prohibit something
may have the rather odd side-effect of popularizing. Prohibition worked in
the respect that it decreased consumption of alcohol to levels ne'er before
achieved by ground-swell temperance movements operating privately; although
it also made popular the undercurrent of defying federal edict. There are
those who would seek out and purchase something merely on the basis of its
being banned. Peculiar but true.
Now, I would reject the notion that prohibition of /something/ is incapable
of being forced, that the reflex to a ban is to immediately achieve the
forbidden material as a defiant badge of status is inherent to the essential
human condition, but rather due moreso to the peculiar relationship and
perception of the role of the citizen and the government in America that this
otherwise unanticipated reaction is encountered.
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 ]
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"Those republics which cannot resort to a dictatorship, or similar authority,
will generally be ruined when grave emergencies occur."
-- Niccolo Machiavelli
