McVeigh and the single case refulation of the arms right.
ssafranek at AVEMARIALAW.EDU
Fri Jan 12 07:47:57 PST 2001
Although many of us may abhor violence, does the "genius" of the people
include the Revolutionary War and the Civil War - the latter where we made
war, not love, on literal brothers - in order to establish a new nation,
dedicated to the principle that all men are created equal?
From: Calvin Johnson [mailto:chjohnson at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 7:01 PM
To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: McVeigh and the single case refulation of the arms right.
We are considerably better off without a right to violence in this country,
even "low-level violence" in which people are shot down in the streets.
The Nazi party growing up fell in love with the rhetoric of blood
it killed the politicians on the other side at a "low level " of a dozen or
so a day to gain power and kept going from there. Martin Luther King
abhored violence. The slogan of the Anti-Vietnam movement was "Make Love
not War (there was another velvet revolution going on at the same time).
The latter two movements epxress the genius of America. The first, a
violent gun one, does not.
At 05:14 PM 01/11/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>If the goal is to bring down an adminstration that has not completely
>become a dictatorship, then violence at levels too low to accomplish a
>revolution may still succeed by creating enough chaos to cause the people
>to through the rascals out at the polls or otherwise. AntiWar violence and
>chaos during the Vietnam War brought down Lyndon Johnson. NATO violence
>and resulting chaos brought down Milosovic in Serbia. Low-level violence
>in Palestine seems to be bringing down Barak.
>At 02:29 PM 1/11/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>>We speak of deterrence even when the deterrence may not completely
>>the activity we seek to deter. For example, one purpose of criminal
>>sanctions is to deter crime, even though we know that criminal sanctions
>>will not prevent all crime.
>>Mark S. Scarberry
>>Pepperdine University School of Law
>>mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu
>>From: Calvin Johnson [mailto:chjohnson at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU]
>>Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 1:10 PM
>>To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
>>Subject: Re: McVeigh and the single case refulation of the arms right.
>>I dont understand Mark's argument, even a little bit. "Deterrence" as in
>>nuclear deterrence means, sure Moscow can drop a bomb on us, but we will
>>wipe them and every one of their present and future heirs off the map.
>>Thus the "fruit" of their bombing us, to use Mark's wonderful sense of
>>understatement, "will not be so sweet." For deterrence to work, the havoc
>>must be commenserate to the action. Thus if all the police are trying to
>>do is enforce a pooper scooper law, then shooting off a knee cap might
>>deter the police. If it is real tyrrany that is to deterred, however,
>>the nuke seems to be required. If the deterrence is not supposed to be
>>really effective then well the retaliation might well be nonserious. As a
>>matter of linquistics, however, I doubt that merely irritating
>>ineffectively deterring violence, such as dead people in the suburbs,
>>should be called deterrence if it is too small a retaliation against the
>>Federal government to be effective.
>>At 12:11 PM 01/10/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>>>Even the possession of less than military equivalent arms by the populace
>>>may deter tyranny. Massive military force is not always useful when one
>>>wishes to rule a city (for example) rather than destroy it. (Note that
>>>police typically do not carry hand grenades.) And pistols and
>>>rifles in the hands of the citizenry can make a tyrant's job in
>>>rule very difficult. One need not necessarily be able to defeat a tyrant
>>>a pitched battle in order to deter tyranny; it may be enough if potential
>>>tyrants are brought to an understanding that the fruit of any seizure of
>>>power will not be sweet. That is why the deterrence rationale can coexist
>>>with reasonable limits on arms possession by the citizens.
>>>Mark S. Scarberry
>>>Pepperdine University School of Law
>>>mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu
Calvin H. Johnson
Andrews & Kurth Centennial Professor of Law
The University of Texas School of Law
727 E. 26th St.
Austin, TX 78705
(512) 232-1306 (voice)
FAX: (512) 232-2399
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Stephen Safranek (Business Fax).vcf
Size: 373 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20010112/b735e42c/StephenSafranekBusinessFax.obj
More information about the Conlawprof