Posted on 04/09/2003 4:05:06 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
I have to give him credit, I have not thrown anything at my congressman (on TV not in person!) since he was elected. I actually do not cringe when he comes on TV. He has acted pretty much like a gentleman. That is a change from Sr.
As to foolish things to say, I am glad when anyone gets a chance for freedom (even if probably temporary) as a byproduct of a misguided policy, no matter how they got it. I would be equally glad if people in the the Central African Republic got freedom as byproduct of a U.S. military invasion...but that doesn't mean I would support such an invasion. There are trade-offs and the trade-offs of trying to "building democracy and unitary state" in a medieval, ethnically divided hell-hole, like Iraq are already becoming apparent.
To one of my favorite posters with great respect, I don't think so on this one. The writings of the Founding Fathers made it pretty clear they meant for the American citizen to have the same weapons as soldiers. Soldiers don't get nukes or bugs.
OK, a soldier gets to fly the plane with the nuke, but he does NOT have disposition as to its use other than as set down by the civilian authority. On automatic weapons, artillery, bazookas, etc. he proceeds as necessary and doesn't have to get specific civilian authority unless the target is "sensitive" for some reason.
Yeah, I know the major reason for 2A is protection against a rogue civilian authority, but nukes and bugs would not be appropriate action in such an instance because of their indiscriminate nature and they would therefore be lethal to the general populace.
Oh, he voted for it, but he opposed using the military.
He wanted to use the archaic "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" against the Taliban. IOW, pay bounty hunters to go after professional terrorists.
Paul couldn't look more ridiculous if he wore a powdered wig and buckled shoes with short pants.
Yours is an interesting distinction, but I'll not buy it insofar as the intent of the founders was concerned. At that time, the most powerful weapon an individual could own was an armed ship equipped with cannon. As you know, there were numerous individuals around the world at that time who were so equipped. Such ownership was not at all outlawed, indeed the services of privateers were even available for hire, as our Constitutional provision for letters of marque would confirm.
Technology changed all that, for a while, and vastly changed spread between type of weapon an individual could control and one possessed by a national military. What you are inferring is that the limits of the power, procurement cost, and operational complexity of weapons has extended beyond the capacity of individuals, IOW, restricted to organized armies of the state, worldwide.
It is true that it once took the resources of a national government to produce any WMD and its associated delivery system. This is not so any more. Technology has reduced the relative cost of such systems. Shoulder mounted kinetic kill weapons, UAVs and GPS guided missiles will eliminate tank warfare, just as Stingers raised havoc with the Soviets. There are arms dealers worldwide who can obtain and sell similar weapons. Soon, any small nation, or even individual, will be capable of at least procuring and possibly producing WMD, particularly biological weapons. We have certainly seen this trend operating in the case of Mr. bin Laden.
As the Iraq War has shown, clearly the new frontier on the weaponry front is state control of data aquisition, management, and communication by which to control the projection of such power. Perhaps our efforts to secure the power of self-defense had best be directed toward distributed data management, open architectures, and public communications and against centralized civic control of information.
I am not sure the best answer is to restrict such power only to designated national governments. "Designation" as determined by whom? You see, that fact, that need to manage risk abroad, fundamentally changes the relationship of individuals to any government once answerable to them, replacing it instead with an alien and unaccountable police authority (whether the US, a competitor, a collection of nations, or the UN or its equivalent).
Witness the psychological effect of that changed relationship between individual and government as it has developed in a disarmed Europe over the last 50 years. They gave up their weapons. Then they got to feel powerless and resent the state of affairs when we, as the guarantor of their security and the party assuming the associated risk, acted independently to their interests. What to do with that frustration? The only surrogate that they see capable of interjecting that interest adverse to us is the UN or NATO, the former of which is accountable to no one.
The European mind doesn't see the arrogance of demanding political power on the basis of a colonial legacy while expecting someone else to pay for and accept the risks associated with enforcing it. That resentment begets throwing some pretty ugly rocks at anything less than their unrealistic desires (expecting perfection out of stupid kids with military weapons). That alienation from the sense of possessing political power to direct their government to secure their interests is exactly what we experience as our own government retains to itself the power to construct a police state. Don't minimize the impact of such an ennui: rather than feel alienated, they run into the arms of the worst of all tyrants. Are we as individuals, fundamentally that different?
It is indeed a fundamental question: How can the nation-state remain the best guarantor of individual liberty when only the state can possess weapons capable of enslaving its own population? As you know if you read my writings, I prefer to use the Constitution to supercede the claim of the state to manage internal risks (environmental, licensure, whatever) by privatizing those agency functions by which to reduce the opportunity to use the state to profit the narrow interests of those capable of buying political favors. If government is doing less, our chances for individual liberty clearly improve.
In "Gun Lawsuits Are No Business Of Congress," Senior Fellow Robert A. Levy writes that "the power to control frivolous lawsuits belongs to the states. When Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce is misused to restrict gun lawsuits, we should not be surprised that it will also be misused to restrict gun possession and ownership." - - Cato Daily Dispatch
Fifty or sixty years of leftist appointments to the judiciary unfortunately allows Congress to get away with unconstitutional legislation.
While it is often heard from legislators (both left and right) that a bill is unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court will overturn, it is, historically, a rare occurance.
This legislation might play well to conservative constituents back home but, alas, it is too bad they are a less informed.
yitbos
A "letter of marque" strategy is a waste of time.
Seriously, Paul could lose his seat for adopting the same stance toward the war as Sheila Jackson Lee. That don't go over well here in Texas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.