A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Oh how I love Usenet when Scott Weiser says:
==============
...what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to
be armed, or not to be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right
to
deny them, ever. AT Mar 7, 12:46 pm
==================

But, almost 8 hours later Scott Weiser states:
==============================
The point is that in a society of law, decisions are made about what
conduct
is acceptable and what conduct is not. That is the purpose of
government and
law

Scott Weiser AT Mar 7, 8:13 pm
===========================

So, now Scott Weiser needs to decide if governments can make decisions
about the ownership of guns (as per his 8:13 comment) OR if NO ONE (not
even the aforementioned government) has the right to deny him his gun
ownership.

Which is it to be, Scott?

It's both.

Our government is constrained in its power by our fundamental organizing
documents. Within the authority granted to the government by the people, the
government has wide authority. But it cannot step one inch outside the
boundary we the people have established. There is a method for changing
those fundamental documents, and yes, it is possible for society to decide
to abrogate fundamental rights. Our Constitution includes within it the
seeds of its own destruction, and at the core, the people have the right to
decide what kind of government they will live under.

Then again, the people, or some sub-set of them, can decide to resist any
attempt to modify our fundamental documents in ways which abrogate
fundamental rights. It's called the "right of revolution."

The difference between most societies and the US is that we openly recognize
this right of revolution, and we have set things up to make revolution
always present and cogent threat to attempts to infringe fundamental rights
or impose tyranny.

That is one of the main purposes of the 2nd Amendment. It is designed to
ensure that the whole populace is well armed at all times and thus fully
capable of rising up in arms against a government that has stepped beyond
the boundaries set for it.

As to who had the right of revolution, the answer is that each of us does.
The only requirement for the legitimate use of the right of revolution is
that you have to win. If you lose, you're a traitor and a criminal and you
usually get killed. That's the check and balance on the right of revolution.

Timothy McVeigh exercised the right of revolution, but he failed in his
quest to foment a general uprising against what he felt was a tyrannical,
illegitimate government. Thus, instead of being a revolutionary hero like
Washington, he's a terrorist traitor, and now he's dead. That's the way the
system works.

This does not mean, however, that the right to keep and bear arms is
entirely free of reasonable regulation in the public interest. But such
regulation must be constrained to the regulation of the time, place and
manner of bearing and using arms only. Such regulations may not legitimately
restrict or deny the right to peaceably keep and bear any and all arms
appropriate for self defense or military use. Thus, a law may legitimately
forbid the firing of a weapon for purposes of other than necessary self
defense in crowded urban areas. But the law may not legitimately forbid a
person from carrying arms in crowded urban areas, nor may the law forbid the
peaceable ownership and possession of arms, absent some justification caused
by the malfeasance of the individual.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser