Posted on 04/18/2002 8:59:28 AM PDT by Lazamataz
Though germs were not understood, there was an understanding of the communicability of diseases and the existence of diseases was also well understood. They also had names for various diseases. And in the case of smallpox, blankets were purposely infected and distributed to indians as early as the year 1763:
These stories are reported, for example, in Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac's forces during the summer of 1763:... Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort -- an early example of biological warfare -- which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer. [p. 108]
This certainly casts doubt on your assertion that the concept of using disease as a weapon of mass destruction was unknown, nor that its indiscriminate nature was in doubt.
I have read of sieges during which the carcasses of dead horses would be catapulted across barriers to encourage disease among the besieged. I don't know for sure if this *practice was used in post-Colonial America. Cities during both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War would come under siege and would be bombarded with heated shot with the sole intention of starting fires to drive the occupants out. This seems pretty indiscriminate to me and yet it would have the desired effect of defeating an enemy.
An enemy. These are actions of a nation at war, which could be said to be the case in the use of biological agents against the Indians.
I would like to keep our focus strictly to individual rights as detailed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
the discussion of nukes in the hands of people is a straw argument....
If you have a Letter of Marquee issued by the Congress, we can talk about what weapons would be permissible.
For those people without the Letter of Marquee, the Second Amendment attains, and we are isolating and discussing this topic.
My point.
Disease was used as a weapon in 1767. I don't think they had the keeping and bearing of smallpox in mind, either.
They wanted a well-armed people to be a barrier to tyrants.
Armed with discriminating weapon, yes, I would agree.
Let us face it, many of the indiscriminate weapons I have mentioned would be a deadly risk to even possess. If you had VX nerve gas, could you transport it, transfer it among containers, and so on without killing yourself and all your neighbors? If you had smallpox, could you culture it and have it ready to employ without infecting yourself?
The risk of possession of these indiscriminate weapons well outwieghs their utility in use versus a criminal or a tyrannical government.
As far as a tyrannical government is concerned, I have long suspected that should this occur many army and airforce personnel will abandon their posts with very indiscriminate weaponry, and at that time a state of general war (civil war) would occur -- and at that time the Second Amendment would cease to have meaning, and instead reality would be the only limiting factor.
I started at thread three to make people believe this thread is more popular than it is. :o)
You sly dog.
I think your position on land mines and booby traps is reasonable. It seems to me, however, that command detonated mines would fit within the "discriminative decision" category. Ya think?
For those people without the Letter of Marquee, the Second Amendment attains, and we are isolating and discussing this topic
They cannot be totally separated. The 2A is not strictly about individual self defense and cannot be argued as if it is solely in that context.
The question is whether or not individuals may own what you term indescriminate weapons. The Constitution makes no distinction making your distinction artificial.
If individuals cannot own weapons and implements of war, then there is no need for letters of marque. However, it seems that the founders contemplated the notion that the federal government might not have all the resources it needed to accomplish the mission, therefore relying on individuals who owned those resources.
The 2A guarantees the right to keep and bear arms without infringement and nothing in the Constitution, except what you invent, places any restrictions on ownership.
Now I might not like my neighbor growing cultures of bacteria, brewing VX, or hoarding plutonium in his garage, but I cannot find where the Constitution prevents it.
But, as I said before, when your 'common sense' restricts some weapons and not others, you open the door to other people like HCI promoting their idea of common sense.
Locke believed that the state of nature implied a law of nature, which is that "no one ought to harm another in his life, heath, liberty or possessions." Ergo, there were "natural rights" to life, liberty and property.5 Locke puts forth that we own our own bodies, and thusly we have the right to own and control ourselves.
As can readily be observed, the true "state of nature" in no way justifies this conclusion -- as our very position at the top of the food chain conclusively demonstrates. Defenders of Locke's position are left with two choices: introduce a series of rather lame qualifiers concerning "moral status," or acknowledge a Creator who has endowed us with the rights embodied in Locke's "natural law."
The first option is well nigh indefensible, and it ultimately reduces to might makes right. It certainly does not allow one to make any distinction between discriminate and indiscriminate weaponry -- as long as it doesn't hurt me or mine, I can use whatever force is necessary.
The second option provides an entirely defensible basis for "natural law," and the distinctions between discriminate and indiscriminate weapons. At the same time, however, the existence of a Creator introduces some additional difficulties to Locke's position -- chief among which is the implication that God, and not we, are the true owners of our bodies.
This brings up a related point: the "state of nature" observed by Locke was primarily a society formed in general accord with the Christian concepts of community, judgement, and eternal life.
In that view, there may be in fact be a moral justification to "disturb anothers quiet enjoyment of his or her belongings" if it is harmful to the community at large.
It's fine and good to limit such devices, but without an Amendment prohibiting WMD, biologicals etc I cannot agree. The founder's did not limit what weapons may be held by the citizens; they didn't limit weapons to only the army or militia; they didn't limit weapons to SELF-defense purposes only; they didn't limit the weapons held to be "discriminating" weapons only or otherwise create distinct classes; they didn't limit weapons to anyone by virtue of age, wealth or any other exclusionary tactic.
And should the last situation you described occur, the armies will be able to slaughter the civilian population regardless - not too many individuals could begin to have the necessary firepower to protect themselves. But the THREAT of having a small nuke might stop them and prevent that very situation from happening. A well-armed population is what kept the Japanese from invading the mainland in WWII. If they thought we all owned a P-51 Mustang maybe they wouldn't have attacked in the 1st place.
Premise 1) A person can entertain a political viewpoint. Agree or disagree.
I'm not sure that there is a law aginst you owning one, but there are laws against you stealing one or receiving a stolen one, or the fissionable material required for one.
Do you think a lot of private citizens can enrich Uranium from 0.7% U-235 to 90.0 %U-235 on their own?
I disagree. Once one is aligned on and commited to the target, it is entirely possible to not even recognize that one has, indeed, engaged.
You are certainly more informed than I regarding the use of smallpox as a weapon. Jenner's development of a vaccine came in 1796, so I am puzzled as to how one could handle smallpox infected blankets without incredible risk to himself or the people he was trying to protect.
I disagree with your distinction regarding individual rights versus national action against an enemy. The whole point of the Second Amendment is that the federal government can become the enemy of the people, use its control of the army to tyrannize the people, and thus the people must have the means to defeat the tyrants and re-establish a free state.
I also disagree with your claim in the posted article that a machine gun is of "slightly more questionable" justification with regard to target discrimination. Having trained on the M-16, I assure you that it does not belong among those arms which might reasonably be outlawed as being indiscriminate.
I am also puzzled by your assertion that an anti-tank rocket is less discriminating than a cannon shooting ball shot.
Not at all... If someone is preparing to become a combatant in a war, then they are fair targets... I am not a believer in a "fair fight" when it comes to fighting a war. I believe that if you're going to take the hideous plunge into war, then you have to be ready to use overwhelming force against the combatants.
The fact is if someone makes an obvious attempt to not be a combatant then the military has the moral obligation to try not to involve them. However, if a civilian attempts to "defend himself" against a military force, then that person is a combatant.
Mark
That's okay, William, failure to know something is no sin. The method of handling these blankets consisted of using individuals who had been exposed to smallpox as a child and were thusly immune.
The whole point of the Second Amendment is that the federal government can become the enemy of the people, use its control of the army to tyrannize the people, and thus the people must have the means to defeat the tyrants and re-establish a free state.
Today, both in my concept of discrimination of weapons and in practicable reality of access to weapons, firepower required to repel a standing army is not available to the common person. Therefore, you will need to use small arms to 'trade up' and also to rely on the patriotism of service personnel to 'liberate' indiscriminate weaponry. There is no other present way to contest a standing army.
I also disagree with your claim in the posted article that a machine gun is of "slightly more questionable" justification with regard to target discrimination. Having trained on the M-16, I assure you that it does not belong among those arms which might reasonably be outlawed as being indiscriminate.
I also have trained on the M-16, and the H&K MP5. The firearms are controllable and one can be reasonably discriminating with them, but there is a very slight degree of a lack of discrimination. Because of this, I would do the following: Repeal the 1934 NFA, repeal the 1986 Manufacturing Ban, and the sole check I would place on them is a normal Brady check. I would, of course, repeal Brady for all non-class III hardware.
I am also puzzled by your assertion that an anti-tank rocket is less discriminating than a cannon shooting ball shot.
The violence of the explosion at the terminus of the ordnance trajectory makes it less discriminating.
That was not a mushroom CLOUD. That was Psilocybin Cubensis.
What I am arguing is that these words exist in a context of reality, and that this reality is that your rights are bracketed by mine. Nobody's rights trump anothers, and therefore we must analyze the ability of you to wield a weapon to positive effect without damaging my rights.
It is for this reason I have analyzed the indisriminate nature of the various forms of weaponry. Those that are excessively indiscriminate cannot be useful to you within the context of the failure to violate my rights.
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.