Re: Stand ByYour Guns

Hey Jillian,

Your "Stand By Your Guns" rhizome object is a really sensible piece. Up to 150 years ago, hunting was a necessity for providing food for the table; it made sense we'd encourage kids to learn how to use guns. But now?

As a Canadian, I'm constantly surprised by themisinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution's amendment on the right to bear arms. From what I understand it gives citizens the right to weapons from the period; flintlock pistols and rifles, swords… that's it. No mention of assault rifles or machine guns.

Love,

Miklos

Comments

, MTAA

(can't believe this is the post I'm responding too after all these weeks)

IMHO, it's clear from the historical context in which the US
constitution was written that the 2nd amendment is designed to allow
citizens' weaponry in case they need to dislodge a tyrannical gov't by
force.

Some argue that it gives only the states the right to bear arms so
that they could fight a federal gov't that grew too strong, but it
still the purpose is the same.

No mention is made of specific technology because the framers knew
that the technology would change.

PS, I'm not a right-wing wacko. I'm actually very liberal, but
generally disagree with the left as far as the 2nd amendment to the US
constitution is concerned.

On 4/15/06, Miklos Legrady <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey Jillian,
>
> Your "Stand By Your Guns" rhizome object is a really sensible piece. Up to 150 years ago, hunting was a necessity for providing food for the table; it made sense we'd encourage kids to learn how to use guns. But now?
>
> As a Canadian, I'm constantly surprised by themisinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution's amendment on the right to bear arms. From what I understand it gives citizens the right to weapons from the period; flintlock pistols and rifles, swords… that's it. No mention of assault rifles or machine guns.
>
> Love,
>
> Miklos
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>



<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>

, Eric Dymond

Like Miklos, I don't get the 2nd amendment.
How does giving rifles and handguns to the general populace help you overcome a military with bazookas, bombs and arms of general mayhem?
It's an old myth, and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny given the firepower of your armed forces.
I believe it contributes to the Bush/Cheney agenda, "If I don't like you…, I'll blow you up". The citizens feel enabled yet guilt free regarding the exploits of their military, you become a member of the powerful without the responsibility, you say "it's not me, it's them" …, but it is you, by proxy. I think America would be a less violent nation if this was repealed.
Eric

, ryan griffis

The interesting thing about the 2nd amendment and the idea of it
functioning to serve potential "revolutionaries" (i.e. people deciding
to overthrow a "tyrannical government") is that it creates an odd
contradiction… it's legal to own guns that might be used to fight the
government, as long as you don't plan on it. There is no concession in
the constitution for when fighting against the government might be a
lawful enterprise - being a revolutionary would always be an illicit
activity.
ryan

On Apr 15, 2006, at 10:09 PM, Eric Dymond wrote:

> Like Miklos, I don't get the 2nd amendment.
> How does giving rifles and handguns to the general populace help you
> overcome a military with bazookas, bombs and arms of general mayhem?
> It's an old myth, and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny given the
> firepower of your armed forces.
> I believe it contributes to the Bush/Cheney agenda, "If I don't like
> you…, I'll blow you up". The citizens feel enabled yet guilt free
> regarding the exploits of their military, you become a member of the
> powerful without the responsibility, you say "it's not me, it's them"
> …, but it is you, by proxy. I think America would be a less violent
> nation if this was repealed.
> Eric
> +

, Jay Scheib

only the successful coup d'etat will be (after the fact) legalized. the
unsuccessful coup d'etat will result in a well of successful capital
crimial cases. anyway. I find this line of discussion to be extremely
interesting

, ryan griffis

On Apr 16, 2006, at 1:11 PM, jayscheib wrote:
>
> Whether violence has anything to do with gun ownership is a long
> conversation. It's not like the swiss civilian population isn't
> totally armed to the teeth. or austria for that matter. or really
> anywhere. that it is easier to own firearms in america than elsewhere
> is sort of a poorly researched rumour. There are laws in place. Not
> anyone can waltz in and buy a glock 9 millimeter pistol over the
> counter. But until someone actually takes down firearms manufacturers
> there will be no change.

Michael Moore is what he is, but didn't he make pretty much just this
point in Bowling for Columbine? his conclusion, that violence in the US
is rooted in the combination of US specific racism and the history of
an entrenched, ideological sense of entitlement regarding property can
be debated, but it's a starting point.

> As Eric points out, when citizens feel a kind of membership to a
> military apparatus