Re: GUNS: Defensive Use

Michael Lorrey (
Sun, 06 Jul 1997 18:13:59 -0400 wrote:
> It seems to me that the intent of the 2nd ammendment had little or nothing to
> do with self defense.....or hunting.
> Taken in context with the Declaration of Independence...and the Federalist
> Papers...I would interpret the 2nd ammendment as the ultimate gaurantor of
> individual rights...or to put it crudely.....when the government gets outa
> hand...the citizens have the means to slap it down..

If one applies the term self defense to mean protection of one's self,
property, and dependents from violators of ones rights, whether they be
individuals, gangs, mobs, or any level of government, then you are
exactly right. Law enforcement agencies are only there to dispense
justice after the fact, not to provide protection services. It operates
by threat of punishment as a deterrent (which apparently is not that
effective), not by threat of deadly force against offense. If the
individual feels that the deterrent of law enforcement (which applies at
local, state, interstate, and international levels) does not meet their
needs, they are free to pursue means of self defense. Since Article Ten
defines the "militia" as any male between the ages of 18 and 40 (or is
it 45?), and also states that local sheriffs are empowered to
temporarily draft from the militia pool for local law enforcement needs
(where the "posse" concept came from), it is apparent that the
constitution intended every member of the "militia" to have authority
and responsibility for law enforcement within the confines of their own
property and family.

> In that context automatic weapons...not to mention rockets..mortars or pocket
> nukes seem perfectly acceptable.

Indeed, if you strictly apply the liberal interpretation of the 2nd
amendment, that arms posessed by the people are to only provide for the
militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, then assault
weapons should be mandated for every member of the militia, therefore,
every male between the ages of 18 and 40 or so should be required to
posess such armaments. Perhaps those who refuse to posess meand of self
defense should be fined for deriliction of social responsibility.

of course, saying this to an anti gun liberal typically puts them in
apoplexies of confusion.

I find another funny parallel, in rural Washington State, every county
but I beleive King, Thurston, Pierce, and Snohomish have passed in the
past three years county ordinances requiring every homeowner to posess a
gun and ammunition. Needless to say, studies have shown that crime has
gone down in those counties, while it is unchanged or up in the counties
that have not passed such ordinances.

			Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------		Inventor of the Lorrey Drive

Mikey's Animatronic Factory My Own Nuclear Espionage Agency (MONEA) MIKEYMAS(tm): The New Internet Holiday Transhumans of New Hampshire (>HNH) ------------------------------------------------------------ #!/usr/local/bin/perl-0777---export-a-crypto-system-sig-RC4-3-lines-PERL @k=unpack('C*',pack('H*',shift));for(@t=@s=0..255){$y=($k[$_%@k]+$s[$x=$_ ]+$y)%256;&S}$x=$y=0;for(unpack('C*',<>)){$x++;$y=($s[$x%=256]+$y)%256; &S;print pack(C,$_^=$s[($s[$x]+$s[$y])%256])}sub S{@s[$x,$y]=@s[$y,$x]}