Re: The Question of Violence -- Part 2

[Brian Carnell <briand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 09:14 PM 2/3/96 -0500, you wrote:

>The students then pointed out how utterly unrealistic such
>assumptions were in a modern day of a standing army with advanced
>technological weaponry. Far from being a check on the power of
>the government, the right to bear arms has become a threat to the
>life and security of the individual and the peace and welfare of
>the community.

Did they just point this out, or did they say why?  Clearly this is wrong.
In fact technological improvements in armaments has led to citizens having a
much greater ability to combat the state, IF citizens were allowed access to
such weaponry, which they currently are not.

>showed how much we as a nation have lost sight of the proper
>balance between individual rights and the common good.

The proper balance being that individual rights should never be sacrificed
for the common good.  We've seen where that has gotten us in this century.

>with a paraphrase of the famous line of Martin Luther King -- "we
>hope that our children will be able to grow up in a world where
>he will be judged not by the size of his weapon, but by the
>strength of his character."

Which is great if it were conceivable that *everyone* would respect my right
to life and liberty, but somehow I'd put more faith in a Glock to preserve
that life and liberty than some flowery phrase...beside it's not the size of
the weapon that counts, but the killing power and skill in its use that
makes for a good deterrent or method of force.

BTW...how do you think Marxists seize power in capitalist countries??  Do
you think they do so with paraphrases of Martin Luther King???

>he
>very first question began "putting aside your individual problem
>with violence..." and it went all downhill from there. The judges
>started from the premise that the Second Amendment was an
>essential check on the power of government, and would not accept
>any answer to their inquiries which did not start from the same
>premise.

You mean they maintained a little bit wary of the state, rather than accept
the Marxist kow towing to anything that pretends to authority???

>Answers which focused on the means for redress of
>grievances within the political system were dismissed as
>inadequate. When one judge inquired as to what African-Americans
>could do but take up arms when deprived of their rights and
>access to government in a situation such as the Jim Crow South,
>the students noted that it was precisely a campiagn of
>non-violent civil disobedience which had overcome such a system
>-- all to no avail.

Let me get this straight...you are teaching children that non-violent action
has brought down racist power structures in America...Puhleeze.  Ever looked
around you?


>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Carnell                                   Coming, Feb. 20...Human Freedom
briand@xxxxxxxxxxxx                             pages (libertarian) at          
                                                                        
http://www.carnell.com/




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------