[ARC5] Fascination, standards and human convention. (Topic re-named. Controversial, perhaps. Long)

[J. Forster]

> Now I digress completely - and throw a hand grenade into the discussion.
> The US constitution makes provision for an armed militia - a people's
> army.
> No doubt this comes from the experience I referred to previously, but
> note the passage of 150 years between 1770 (actually 1776) and 1620.
> Now, in the 21st century, a civilian militia means nothing.
> One Sherman tank (and even the more Abrams) can overcome 1,000 rifles,
> but following the tendancy to "stick with the past" the US population
> appeals to the constitution for a right to bear arms.

I don't think that is entirely clear. The crew of the tank has to eat and
sleep and refuel....   pretty often. I'd image a determined 1000 could
make life pretty difficult for any tank.

Look at what a poorly armed populace has done in various places.

> And I note the right to bear arms is given in the context of "MILITIA" -
> presumably a collective right given to oppressed citizens, rather than
> individuals.
> As I read the constitution, this is to allow citizens to stand against
> an oppressive government.  (The experience of 1620 lives on ...)
> Again - this is a convention based on origin, and an origin no longer
> relevant - as per my example of the Abrams.

I disagree. However, IMO, it is unlikely 1000 people would have the guts
to stand against tanks.

> Here, in Australia, where gun ownership is tightly regulated, most
> regard the US attitude with bemusement.

Your aboriginees didn't shoot back. And your wide open spaces are far more
sparsely populated. And the English Civil War was fought with swords.

> In the same way the Brits cling to convention - and we here in Australia
> follow that.
> We have a copy of Magna Carta in our Parliament (or maybe even the
> original) - but that document is mostly irrelevant in 2014.

Well, the Magna Carta was about Barons limiting the power of the Monarch.
The Queen's powers are still pretty limited. She does not run the
government.

The US Constitution was designed with checks and balances. The Congress
has abrogated its responsibility to limit the power of an imperial
presidency.

> (I intended no offense in my reference to the US constitution, but I
> understand many will find what I wrote distasteful.  So - I apologize in
> advance for this.  I'm simply giving the Australian experience about
> guns and gun control.)

No, wrong.

-John

================

>> To me, the stories are interesting.
> Yes, Mike, to me also.  Very interesting.  Maybe even fascinating.
>
> Thank you Mike, for a thought-provoking posting.
> I'm away from radio, and if this posting is "cut", I don't mind.
>
> Les