CDR: Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...

[Mac Norton]

Again we have one of those few occasions in which Tim and I 
are in perfect agreement.  To require gun ownership just 
because "arms" or "militia" is in the Constitution makes
as much sense as requiring us all to have a press just
because "press" is in the Constitution.

Now to the second point, police power regulation by states,
implicitly cited below.  We settled in the Civil War the question
of whether States get to arm themselves against invasion.  They
don't. I have no doubt the same holds true for municipalities.
The "common defense" is a national defense. A State has no authority
to require you to keep or bear arms.
MacN
On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote:

> At 7:35 PM -0500 11/5/00, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote:
> >      Yes, while it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to
> >pass this law, how could it be unconstitutional as a local or state
> >statute?  Something similar to requiring X number of smoke detectors per
> >square foot.
> 
> While I don't agree that the 14th Amendment ("equal protection...") 
> was needed, this is the basis for reminding states that they may not 
> pass laws which are unconstitutional.
> 
> Thus, Oregon may not pass a law banning Mormonism, even though the C. 
> says "Congress shall make no law..."
> 
> Further, every state agreed to uphold the U.S. Constitution upon 
> entry (and perhaps as a condition of entry, though I'm not a C. 
> expert on this) to the Union.
> 
> It won't fly to say that while Congress may not ban guns, or require 
> guns, that states and local jurisdictions are free to do thusly.
> 
> As for smoke detectors, they fall in the same category as seat belts, 
> helmets, and other such intrusions: unconstitutional, a "taking." 
> While they may be _good ideas_, it is not the business of government 
> to enter our homes in this way.
> 
> Smoke detectors and wiring standards are, however, a long way away 
> from banning guns, or requiring guns. Let's not get sidetracked into 
> chestnuts like "If libertarians don't want government, how do roads 
> get built?" There _are_ answers, but they require laying some 
> groundwork.
> 
> The point I was making is that those who think they can outsmart the 
> gun banners by _requiring_ guns are giving ammunition to the banners. 
> And are violating the Constitution.
> 
> >Additionally, it does not mention a paperwork requirement for
> >not owning a gun.
> 
> One becomes a violator of the law by not having a gun. One could 
> mount a defense based on the C. issues, or the C.O. issues. This is 
> what I meant by "paperwork."
> 
> Well, we don't _need_ to justify to anyone why we don't have a 
> television, or telephone, or computer, or rifle, or encyclopedia, or 
> anything else "required" by some law.
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> >
> >      While I admit it seems like a foolish law (akin to requiring a citizen
> >to vote), I hardly see how it would require 'a killing'.  Also, given their
> >views, killing them may not be as easy as others who are unarmed. ;-)
> 
> I make the point about "x needs killing" to help lay the moral 
> groundwork. Just as preachers had been saying "abortion clinics are a 
> scourge and should be bombed," and bombings then started, it helps if 
> people start to think in terms of hundreds of thousands of rights 
> violators having earned killing, bombing, and nerve gassing.
> 
> Doesn't mean I plan to do it myself, any more than the preachers 
> saying that killing abortionists is a moral act planned to do it 
> themselves. It's about the moral issues. And changing the moral 
> climate.
> 
> Read "Unintended Consequences," by John Ross, for a fuller 
> explication of this point.
> 
> Crypto anarchy doesn't just mean erosion of government, it provides 
> the means to carry the war for liberty into the belly of the beast. 
> Unlike many, I've never hidden this basic point. Think about it.
> 
> If this scares off some weak sisters, good.
> 
> --Tim May
> -- 
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> "Cyphernomicon"             | black markets, collapse of governments.
> 
>