FW: Going Postal
CJohnson at law.utexas.edu
Fri Apr 10 13:47:39 PDT 2009
Thanks, and of course. Stupid typo, or rather silly thinko.
And indeed it is ultimately Hobbes, that unless a central power exists to suppress private violence, then life in the state of nature is brutish, nasty and short
Calvin H. Johnson
Andrews & Kurth Centennial Professor of Law
The University of Texas School of Law
727 E. Dean Keeton (26th) St.
Austin, TX 78705
(512) 232-1306 (voice)
FAX: (512) 232-2399
For reviews, chapters, discounts and news on Johnson, Righteous Anger at the Wicked States: The Meaning of the Founders Constitution (Cambridge University Press 2005) see http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson/RighteousAnger/
From: Howard Schweber [mailto:schweber at polisci.wisc.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:08 PM
To: Calvin Johnson
Subject: Re: Going Postal
Weber, not Marx.
Calvin Johnson wrote:
Issues are the same for Arm's Control and Gun Control. Does not North Korea, Iran and NW provinces of Pakistan also have right to nuclear weapons, for defense only of course, against Isreal and US? If we are serious that individuals must have arms to deter Federalis, should we not provide the nuclear arms as well? It is after all the right to bear arms that we are talking about. On the merits I think I am comfortable with what Marx called the monopoly of the State over violence. At least as to nuclear violence. The differences between AK47s and nuclear arms are just issues of degree.
Let me also remind what we are talking about: Columbine, Texas Tech, Birmingham, Pittsburg, Going Postal.
Right to Bear Arms in original intent was right to be drafted, with Quakers exempted. You do have a right to serve on Jury. But we think of it as a duty in our current language. Right to Bear Arms did not include the need to have individual AK47s and Nuclear arms, even in theory.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof