Re: Police & military access (fwd)

[Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>]

Forwarded message:

> Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 00:53:43 -0700
> From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
> Subject: Re: Police & military access

> I have no problem with the notion that there is no weapon, no technology
> which certain government officials or police may have but which civilians
> are *not* allowed to have. I don't think the Founders envisioned any such
> circumstances.

They considered such a state instrumentality in the army, the precise reason
they didn't want a standing army in the first place (ie 2yr. limit on ALL
military spending, something flaunted openly). They clearly didn't want such
instrumentalities used by peace time forces and considering the
constitutional ban on using military forces inside the borders of the US it
seems clear they didn't want them used against the citizenry, period.

> The usual cited case is of private ownership of nuclear weapons.

You should read "Dad's Nuke".

> (The Founders didn't know about nuclear weapons and biological weapons,

At this time Simon De' Laplace was forming his first writings regarding how
the sun worked. It discussed gaseous compression and its 'lighting'. Just
about everything else in the paper was wrong.

Tell that to all the Indians they intentionaly killed with smallpox infected
blankets and their commen cold. While they did't didn't have a clue to the
actual process they were well aware of how to deal with the diseases.

I would say my experience is that the relative cluelessness held by the
users of their technology clearly matched those we now trust with it.


                                                 Jim Choate
                                                 CyberTects
                                                 ravage@ssz.com