McVeigh and the single case refulation of the arms right.

[Safranek, Stephen]

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?




-----Original Message-----
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
baths;
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
eliminate
>>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
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>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
well
>>deter the police.  If it is real tyrrany that is to deterred, however,
then
>>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
non-automatic
>>>rifles in the hands of the citizenry can make a tyrant's job in
maintaining
>>>rule very difficult. One need not necessarily be able to defeat a tyrant
in
>>>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
Website:  http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Stephen Safranek (Business Fax).vcf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 373 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20010112/b735e42c/StephenSafranekBusinessFax.obj