[118915] in Cypherpunks
Re: CDR: Re: An immediate way to end federal gun control?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Choate)
Sun Oct 10 14:45:10 1999
From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-Id: <199910101839.NAA14075@einstein.ssz.com>
In-Reply-To: <199910101836.NAA14018@einstein.ssz.com> from Jim Choate at "Oct 10, 99 01:36:43 pm"
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 13:39:28 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: froomkin@law.miami.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
> Hi Michael,
Again,
I forgot to ask if I can place this on my webpage.
> > May does not equal must.
Where in the quoted piece of the Constitution below is the work 'may'?
> Absolutely. I'm glad you agree that federal intervention at the state level
> during times of imminent danger is not at the federals discretion.
>
> The fact is that there is *no* delegate in the Constitution that allows the
> federals to bypass the states discretionary choice in this matter.
>
> If you'll review,
>
> http://www.ssz.com/cdr/guns.html
>
> you'll find that 'riots in the streets' is not sufficient to deny this
> option to the states.
>
> > On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Jim Choate wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I believe I've stumbled onto a rather important aspect of gun control:
> > >
> > > >From The Constitution:
> > >
> > > No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of
> > > tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any
> > > agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or
> > > engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as
> > > will not admit of delay.
> > >
> > > Does this not say that each state is required to defend itself during
> > > invasion or other crisis that happen so fast that the federal authorities
> > > can't be brought to bare. Does it also say that it can't do this with
> > > troops? Does this not imply that every state is required to provide for the
> > > arming of its citizenry in crisis? Does it not also further imply a
> > > continous state of readiness? Does it not also not mention the militia,
> > > implying yet a fourth party (ie 'the people') is involved in defence? Does
> > > it also not provide for funding for this party? Does this not imply that the
> > > people are supposed to buy the guns themselves with their own money as they
> > > see fit?
____________________________________________________________________
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full
of passionate intensity.
W.B. Yeats
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
