|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 11:12 AM EST |
"Private citizens owning an F16 or Artillery is obviously
absurd."
Why? (And before you answer, you should realize that several American citizens,
including Paul Allen, actually own Soviet MiG fighter jets.)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: davecb on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 03:26 PM EST |
"Esquire" after your name used to mean that if there was a call-up for war,
you'd arrive on a horse. Both you and your footmen were expected to have
armour, and a spear or two.
Really heavy weapons, like a trebuchet or a
siege tower, were always provided by the King. In many cases, the King or Lord
would also issue standard equipment and arms from an "armoury".
In
principle, a country wishing to have a volunteer army prepared for call-up could
have armouries, and train everyone for a few weekends a year. Every medium-size
town in Ontario seems to have an armoury of sufficient size for the purpose, as
we used to do just that, circa 1812-14.
Knowing there was, by law, a
sufficient supply of arms and equipment for a call-up, farmers and townsmen in
1812 tended to have moderate numbers of rifles and shotguns, something that
appears to be the case still.
Canada isn't as likely to be invaded by the
U.S. these days, so the armouries have only what they need for the local Militia
regiments, and no-one is expected to show up with a horse and a tin suit on
demand.
This seems to have a pleasant side-effect: Canadians kill each
other less often, and in smaller numbers. I'm sure there are other reasons as
well, but not having to self-supply oneself for a war seems like a calming sort
of thing to do.
--dave
---
davecb@spamcop.net [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 28 2012 @ 08:10 AM EST |
I can't believe any sane person buys into the argument that
private ownership of guns in today's USA is a check against
government tyranny. It may have been true in George
Washington's day, but it is preposterous to make such a
statement in view of the capabilities of the modern US
military.
Likewise, the citizen militia as defense against foreign
invaders is an obsolete idea.
IMHO the arguments contained in the Second Amendment are as
obsolete as buggy whips. They are centered around practical
effects of private weapons (collective resistance to
domestic or foreign oppressors) that simply no longer apply.
It is fair enough to advocate gun ownership on the basis
that it is a liberty that deserves protection, but the
practical argument of common defense is not valid in 2012.
And even though the First and Second amendments sit side-by-
side in the constitution, I personally cannot conceive that
ownership of weapons could be as critical of a right as that
of free speech, press, or assembly.
In any event, if our government is setting policy related to
the practical effects (as opposed to ideology) of gun
ownership, we need to base our decision on the present-day
effects, not the situation in the 1700s.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
