> At 01:02 AM 12/17/1998 -0800, Brian Burger wrote:
> Most of the rest of the world doesn't think this way (thank god) so our
I think folks should go back and read the Declaration of Independence before
commenting on the US's attitudes towards fire arms. Many forget that the
reason the second ammendment was put in was so that the common people would be
able to fight and throw off their own government. If the Colonies had adopted
the attitude now followed in Britain, we would never have been able to throw
off the English yolk. The French army forces were a significant force in our
War of Independence, but then so were the cannons, rifles and muskets that the
individuals and militias brought to bear.
In the recent Russian revolution, the pro-democracy forces were
able to stare down the Army because the troops did not want to fire on their
own people. There were enough of their own people in the streets because they
were armed enough to make a stand. The point is that many Americans take the
right to bear arms very seriously, and a number are willing to violate the law
to maintain that ability. There are a number of nut cases willing to kill
innocent people to keep their weapons. The NAC would have to adjust to this
American attitude by either winking at the Americans when they ban weapons, or
to leave that issue alone.
Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!
On Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:00:17 -0800, "Phillip E. Pournelle"
> <pepourne@nps.navy.mil> wrote:
> I think folks should go back and read the Declaration of
I thought it was in order to provide a defensive militia due to fears of a
British invasion from Canada. If Napoleon hadn't caused a stir in Europe at
the turn of the 19th Century, Britain might have done just that (might
have...).
Of course, my favourite "what if" involves a story a friend of mine wrote
(sold to a couple of anthologies, and part of a novel) where Britain owns
Louisianna and hence what is now Western US. It involves a much larger
Canadian involvement in a US Civil War in the 1850s (something that came very
close to happening). Funny enough, this alternative history is more likely to
result in the NAC than our current history.
> If the
*L* By that logic, neither would have Australia or Canada (let alone India,
etc.). Sure you would. And you would have had an end to slavery about 40 years
earlier, and most likely a less divisive society than you have now.
> In the recent Russian revolution, the pro-democracy forces were
Hmmm... I think you're discounting the fact that most of the Russian Army was
conscripts and not professionals, and that morale was low enough to prevent
problems. There's also the fact that the Russian move to democracy was lawful,
and that the anti-democracy forces were in the moral wrong. The
pro-democracy
forces worked due to defections within the Russian Army, not because of the
arming of the people. Those guns on the streets of Russia are now making
Russia an incredibly dangerous and hostile place.
> The point is that many Americans take the right to bear arms
I can't see Britain and Canada ignoring the gun control issue or leaving it
alone. Actually, there is every possibility that the US will end up with a gun
control law similar to that in Canada, but it will take a ground swell of
popular support, it will divide the country, and it will take at least 20
years. Actually, if you want a divisive issue that tears at the fabric of the
US and ends up swinging it towards Jon's NAC model, that could be it. It also
gives you the basis of Cal-Tex, where guns are quite legal and the old
US constitution holds sway.
(Note, I do NOT want to debate gun control. However, it does make an
interesting discussion: what would the role of guns be within the NAC.)
> Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!
[snip]
> (Note, I do NOT want to debate gun control. However, it does make an
> Allan Goodall agoodall@interlog.com
This is an interesting point - my feeling would be that this matter
would be variable depending on location. In the Earth territories of the NAC,
and in the more heavily settled Inner Colonies, gun control may be tight,
whereas in the Outworlds where population is sparse and a more "frontier"
attitude prevails then control
may be much looser or non-existant - though even then this is probably
going to vary with individual cases: a backwoods farmer on a
human-habitable outworld is likely to have quite an arsenal (defence
against inimical local wildlife as well as againstother settlers) while a
hostile-environment outworld settlement with everyone living in close
proximity in a sealed environment might have total prohibition of private gun
ownership.
Allan spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > The point is that many Americans take the right to bear arms
It also
> gives you the basis of Cal-Tex, where guns are quite legal and the old
OTOH, one could easily argue that a divisive civil war that had so
polarized the nation along regional/ethnic/class/ideology lines could
well result in more than a few groups being unwilling to disarm in order to be
included. I think there would be (if the NAC had gun
control - other than applied at a regional level) a LOT of hidden
firepower (including military arms) in the former US.
I think this part of NAC policy should be left to local regions to decide.
I'll bet the British Police (uniformed) still as a rule don't
carry guns. Especially in a world of puke-lasers and stunners and
such technologies.
Tom.
/************************************************