Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/15/2002 12:41:55 PM EDT
Interesting stuff for readers interested in the nuances of the 2nd ad. Volokh is a UCLA law professor. He is a Russian immigrant who graduated from UCLA at 15 years of age. Quote - BEARING ARMS, REVOLUTIONS, AND THE LIKE: A reader quotes my blogging that "One can believe that a strong government, including a strong federal government, is necessary, but also recognize that such a government's power should be checked by, among other things, the citizenry being armed," and responds: “OK, so in your opinion there are situations where it is ethical and/or legal for citizens to take up arms against a duly-elected, democratic government?” Of course as to "ethical"; I think few people would think otherwise. Imagine a duly-elected, democratic government that decides to exterminate some racial minority group (not, unfortunately, a ridiculous proposition) -- is it ethical for citizens to take up arms against this government to defend themselves? Of course. Now one might say that this government isn't "democratic," even if it's elected through democratic procedures -- but that just makes the definition circular ("democratic" = "the sort of government that doesn't do the things which would justify people taking up arms against it"). Of course those who do fight back (should such a fight be necessary) would be punished if they lose, just as the American Revolutionaries would have been punished if they had lost. As I said, the Constitution doesn't and can't secure a "right to revolution" in the sense of a legal immunity against being prosecuted for revolution. But it does secure the right to own the tools of revolution. Much more here at the [url=http://volokh.blogspot.com/] Volokh Conspiracy[/url]
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 6:54:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2002 6:58:58 PM EDT by KBaker]
I read this before seeing your post, flashman. I check Volokh's weblog a couple of times a day - very informative. This part was so good I archived it. Highly recommended.
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 7:22:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2002 7:23:31 PM EDT by flashman]
Good stuff indeed. There are more defenders of the second out there than most of us realize. I’m gonna’ start a site dedicated to linking to those law professors who are supporters of the second. It’ll be useful in the coming fight over the elimination of the AWB for those who chose to write to their reps. Volokh will be near the top of the list. Mike
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 7:36:22 PM EDT
Link more than just law professors. Link lawyers too. Don Kates comes immediately to mind. Clayton Cramer is a programmer, but is also an amatuer historian and a published author on gun control. He has an excellent website. Other things to link to would be Sanford Levinson's paper [i]"The Embarrassing Second Amendment"[/i] - Levinson is a law professor and a member of the ACLU. Link to Michael S. Brown - an opthalmologist who writes short (and widely published) essays on gun control. I've been studying this stuff for over seven years now. There's a hell of a lot of really excellent information out there, by a wide variety of people. In one recent transcript I read, Don Kates and historian Joyce Lee Malcom were the speakers. Kates was quoted as saying that his biggest problem with the fight for the right to arms had been that "it was the more sophisticated argument being made by the less sophisticated proponents." Professor Malcom responded "I object to that!" To which he replied "I said it twenty years ago. You hadn't graduated high school twenty years ago." We've come a long way since the eighties.
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 7:53:15 PM EDT
It has always been SOP that the winners of any conflict can rewrite the rules after the fact.
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 8:07:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2002 8:11:19 PM EDT by flashman]
Kbaker - yes, those are all good points, and good links. Free_Man - I’m confused. Your point? Mike
Top Top