Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

clark · 2003-05-07 15:01:08

Who the hell needs an assault rifle anyway, except the military?

This is precisly WHY we need assult rifles. In fact, this sentiment explains the proliferation of every weapon since neolithic times.

Thag has a rock, so Rogg needs a rock.... becuase you never know when Thag will throw his rock at Rogg.

A week goes by...

Rogg invents a sling, now he can throw his rocks farther and faster than Thag. Thag needs a sling becuase you never know when Rogg will sling some rocks at Thag.

10 million years go by

Thag develops a thermo nuclear weapon, so Rogg needs a thermonuclear weapon... because you never know....

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

colonist · 2003-05-08 04:48:38

The founding fathers DID know that fully automatic firearms were in the future. During the revolution there were several attempts to make fully automatic personal arms including the "picket" gun (a 7-barreled weapon designed to chain fire) and a few attempts to produce rifles that fired like roman candles.

You must also remember that artilery was covered by the provisions of the 2nd ammendment. You could also ask "who needs a 7 pounder mountain howitzer?" It is hard to think of a more military item of equipment than a cannon.

To find out what the founding fathers meant, you need to ignore those idiots who put forward the claim of a "living" constitution (basicaly they are saying that the constitution means whatever they want it to say) and interpret the part in question using the dictionary in common use at the time. The result looks someting like this:

"A well trained citizen militia, being needed to protect the freedoms of individuals from an encroaching government, the right to own and carry military weaponry shal not be denied to anyone."

In the U.S, code, the citizen militia is defined as "every able bodied male betwen the ages of 17 and 47".

Algol · 2003-05-08 07:02:36

"A well trained citizen militia, being needed to protect the freedoms of individuals from an encroaching government, the right to own and carry military weaponry shal not be denied to anyone."

Is that really what it says. Unsurprisingly i've never actually read it. So it was designed as a protection from the government, not criminals (which would fit in with the point about it having been about muskets). Also, when i read militia, i imagine anything from a privately organised, trained, local defence force, with a central weapons cache (armoury), up to say the national gaurd, as opposed to every man for himself holed up in his house, with his gun, doing as he damn pleases. ???

Palomar · 2003-05-08 07:27:54

"A well trained citizen militia, being needed to protect the freedoms of individuals from an encroaching government, the right to own and carry military weaponry shal not be denied to anyone."
Is that really what it says. Unsurprisingly i've never actually read it. So it was designed as a protection from the government,...
as opposed to every man for himself holed up in his house, with his gun, doing as he damn pleases. ???

*It says "to protect the freedoms of individuals from AN encroaching government"...Algol, I'm interpreting that as referring to a menace or attack from a *foreign* government/power. My intrepretation is based on the context of the sentence Colonist quotes; of course, my interpretation is just that and may be wrong.

As for your last sentence: It seems to me that when the majority of people are more concerned about "ME, ME, ME" and what they want to do on a purely selfish basis, society is in trouble. It seems to me there has to be a level of cooperation and cohesiveness within a society for the society to be healthy and strong. What all that encompasses and comprises [i.e. cooperation and cohesiveness in a society] is another issue for discussion, probably already discussed here...and I'm not sure I want to delve into it. I also don't mean to get side-tracked.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2003-05-09 18:28:22

*It says "to protect the freedoms of individuals from AN encroaching government"...Algol, I'm interpreting that as referring to a menace or attack from a *foreign* government/power. My intrepretation is based on the context of the sentence Colonist quotes; of course, my interpretation is just that and may be wrong.

Two things should be kept in mind with regards to the Second Amendment. Other writings from the time make it very clear that it was meant as an individual right, both as a means of preventing tyrannical government, both foreign and domestic, and more generally as a means of self defense. If I recall some of those writings were quoted a few pages back.

But perhaps more importantly, it must be taken in the context of the Bill of Rights. Of those first ten amendments, the other nine are unquestionably individual rights, not "state rights." That was in fact the whole purpose of having the Bill of Rights. It seems reasonable that if the Second Amendment was, unlike the other nine, meant not as an individual right but as some form of state-regulated militia or National Guard clause, it would have been made very clear. Instead we have not only the wording itself which shows it to be a right of individual citizens, but its place in the Bill of Rights, among individual rights. All the records from the period suppport this interpretation.

The implication is that citizens can not only own and carry weapons for defense but can also own military small-arms of equivalent capability of those used by the army at the time. There was in fact a Supreme Court case (US vs. Miller)sometime in the 1930's that supports such an interpretation. The court ruled that the defendent DID NOT have a Constitutional right to own a sawed-off shotgun because, being that the weapon had such short range and was so inaccurate, it had no military value and therefore was not protected under the Second Amendment. By that intepretation the 1994 assault weapon ban is unconstitutional. Of course it doesn't really ban "assault weapons" in the proper senses, since automatic weapons have been illegal since the 1920's. This doesn't conflict with the Miller ruling as the sub-machine gun and other personal automatic weapons were not considered proper military weapons at the time.

How does this relate to Mars, you might ask? Unless the United States colonizes it and annexes that colony into the union, it doesn't. But the basic principles behind a "right to bear" arms still apply, bringing us back where we started!

Josh Cryer · 2003-05-09 22:20:40

These days I find the whole ?the second ammendment allows us to prevent ourselves from a tyrannical government? utterly ridiculous. That argument became illegitimate after the South tucked tail and ran. I mean, really, has anyone noticed how big the US military is? Seriously, anyone who believes the whole ?protection from a tyrannical government? needs to take a breather and realize that their small arsenal of guns is just going to wind up like Waco if they're lucky. The only legitimate argument left, then, is the whole, ?protect ones possessions or property.?

Is this a legitimate argument on Mars? Certainly, I would say that it definitely is. Especially if things are quite modular (which I think they'll be). I mean, we'll want to protect our stuff, right? I know I would. Especially if there are asses like foadi running around incapable of respecting someone elses physical possessions. I mean, holy crap, can you imagine being in a hab you just set up, only to have some prick who thinks he owns your area of Mars drive up to your airlock and demand half of your hydrogen cells for ?payment? or whatever?

But this doesn't mean one has a ?natural right? to possess a weapon (especially one as devestating as a projectile). You can rightly argue that a weapon is necessary in a ghetto street, you can't rightly argue that a weapon is necessary in a public cafeteria or promenade or whatever. Especially if we're talking about a colony where poverty, etc, are non-existant (we can go there if anyone wants- however, it might be off-topic).

This is why I initally argued in the constitutional thread that there shouldn't be a second ammendment type law, but rather a clause that said something along the lines of ?no laws shall be made respecting nor disrespecting the individual right to carry weapons? or whatever.

Cobra Commander · 2003-05-09 22:37:28

This is why I initally argued in the constitutional thread that there shouldn't be a second ammendment type law, but rather a clause that said something along the lines of ?no laws shall be made respecting nor disrespecting the individual right to carry weapons? or whatever.

I may have misunderstood what you're saying, but this seems to be a rather extreme position. it results in a de-facto right to carry weapons if no law can exist either way. This essentially leaves an opening for an individual to carry any weapon they can lift.

.50 cal machine guns for everybody!

Josh Cryer · 2003-05-09 23:45:19

Hah! I think that a hab could legitimately have a .50 cal sub-machinegun.

Who would rob such a hab?

Individual rights combined to make one have a larger right, coulod make sense. Obviously, though, you don't want to let it get carried away, and I didn't mean for it to be. I just think that it's not the governments business arming or not arming the individuals within it.

dicktice · 2003-05-10 08:51:59

This is why I initally argued in the constitutional thread that there shouldn't be a second ammendment type law, but rather a clause that said something along the lines of ?no laws shall be made respecting nor disrespecting the individual right to carry weapons? or whatever.
I may have misunderstood what you're saying, but this seems to be a rather extreme position. it results in a de-facto right to carry weapons if no law can exist either way. This essentially leaves an opening for an individual to carry any weapon they can lift.
.50 cal machine guns for everybody!

God, I hate it, don't you?--when someone, after going on and on with an intricate, detailed argument, finishes up with ... "or whatever"!

Josh Cryer · 2003-05-10 12:51:21

Hah. I just knew that when I said ?no laws shall be made respecting nor disrespecting the individual right to carry weapons? could be misconstrued and didn't really reflect what I really meant! I was leaving an opening to correct myself. That's why I say that a lot, because I generalize sometimes.

A better outline could be, ?No international laws shall be made governing the right for one to protect ones self with a weapon, nor shall any international laws be made to abrogorate said right.? This at least covers that we're talking about an individual right, and that it's an international law (a local level law could of course be made- going into a colony is like entering a house with its own rules, you can't expect to be allowed to bring in a couple of assult weapons). But I'm sure more of the articulate posters could come up with better wording for the idea I'm and was trying to express.

When you say, ?the right to bare arms,? you're basically arming a populace whether you like it or not. It's a right, and if people aren't arming themselves, they're giving up a right. I think that's one of the main reasons the US is so gun happy, but please let's not let this devolve into a discussion about how the US is gun happy.

There is a reason the first ammendment doesn't say, ?The right to worship God.?

Palomar · 2003-05-10 13:51:35

When you say, ?the right to bare arms,?

*Hey! My arms are currently 2/3 bare!

And that's ALL I'll bare...I'm a lady.

--Cindy

dicktice · 2003-05-12 15:37:20

Cindy, I'm surprised at you. Josh must have made a blooper, although his was the only statement that said "bare" instead of "right to carry weapons," and ... and then he goes on about "arms" so it gets funnier ... but ... oh, my ... you're right, girl ... it is funny--haw!

Palomar · 2003-05-12 17:02:46

Cindy, I'm surprised at you. Josh must have made a blooper, although his was the only statement that said "bare" instead of "right to carry weapons," and ... and then he goes on about "arms" so it gets funnier ... but ... oh, my ... you're right, girl ... it is funny--haw!

*I'm just full of surprises, dicktice; you could ask my husband...he'd tell you. The poor man has had to live with me the past 10 years! :laugh:

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-05-12 23:53:44

The poor man has had to live with me the past 10 years! :laugh:

2/3rd bare arms and all! :laugh:

clark · 2003-05-13 11:20:41

I received this as one of those 'forwards' that populate the ethereal void of inner space we call the 'net'. I have no idea if this is authentic, but I must say, I laughed pretty hard after reading it. And as an added bonus, it slightly applies to this thread....

Marine Corps General Reinwald was interviewed on the radio the other day and you have to read how he responded to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you got to? love this!!!!
This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
The radio went silent and the interview ended.

EDIT: I looked up the General on the NPR website. It is a hoax, but a funny one all the same.

http://www.npr.org/about/urbanmyth.reinwald.html

About NPR: The Mythical General Reinwald
There's a story going around about a woman reporter for NPR who interviewed a General Reinwald. This "interview" is a long standing Internet hoax. It began as a spoof on the BBC and made its way to the U.S. about 8 years ago.

Josh Cryer · 2003-05-13 14:30:57

http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.htm

clark · 2003-05-13 14:45:10

LOL.

I think I would have to agree with the final observation of the website you linked to Josh.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-05-19 09:22:03

I posted the following message here.

Cobra Commander · 2003-06-13 19:17:49

This is in response to something in the "President Bush" thread in Free Chat, but it's really more appropriate here.

The Iraq war is repeatedly referred to as an "illegal" invasion. Of course the Bush Administration refers to Iraq's "illegal" weapons as the cause for the action. The question this raises is simply, what is law?

Well, law is an instrument of social control. Many assume it is control for the greater good of society, but that is not necessarily the case. Law doesn't prevent crime, it defines it. It depends on enforcement (root word force) to exercise that control.

Law is the controlled and consistent application of force.

So, the question with regards to Martian law is simply this: How much control do we want? At what point does law cease to protect people (by stating the circumstances under which force can be applied and to what degree) and become merely a nuisance, or a tool of oppresion? Of course it depends on the society itself and I don't claim to know where the line will be. I have some opinions as to where it should be, but one strong opinion doesn't count for much. Unless Mars goes fascist...

Back to Iraq, if Iraq had weapons banned by UN resolution (which were found, in the form of missiles with range greater than permitted under the UN terms) than the invasion was not illegal, but enforcement of the law. Arguably, not acting would have been "illegal."

Just an example. Let's not allow the Iraq debate to spill into here too. Now that I've opened the door...

Josh Cryer · 2003-06-14 01:02:52

Well, I think that lack of law can also be a nuisance, and lead to levels of oppression.

I don't know exactly what you are asking, though. I mean, you ask, but then you say that you have your own opinion, and that it doesn't really count for much.

The central point of law is review, not enforcement. Law would be meaningless if anyone accused of a crime were to be punished (much like the death mobiles in China- if you are accused of a henious crime, and there is enough immediate ?evidence,? a little white van will pull up and give you a lethal injection).

A police officer can't (and rightly shouldn't) enforce law to its full extent (ie, judge, jury and executioner). A police officers job is to make sure people act civil, basically, his level of enforcement goes no further than that (except in situations where obviously his life is in danger).

My real concern isn't the level of control we have, because I think that we can naturally find a good mix- this is really a cultural thing and can't be defined ?utterly? for everyone. (But I think that I would like as few overall laws as physically possible.)

My real concern is, how do we make sure corrupt individuals don't take law to the extreme? How do we make sure the review process is as just as possible?

There was a case in Texas where over a dozen black people were arrested on drug charges. There was absolutely no evidence, but they all got hard time in jail. It was a case where the review process went completely out the window.

Some could argue the same about Iraq.

Cobra Commander · 2003-06-14 01:48:49

Well, I think that lack of law can also be a nuisance, and lead to levels of oppression.

I'm in complete agreement.

I don't know exactly what you are asking, though. I mean, you ask, but then you say that you have your own opinion, and that it doesn't really count for much.

My opinion doesn't count for much because it won't influence fututre Martian law any more than anyone else's. Unless, many discuss the subject openly and reach a consensus on at least a few points. That was really my point, to get back to a general discussion of Martian law after that unfortunate, multi-page gun-rights exchange. I get as weary of it as everyone else.

The central point of law is review, not enforcement.

Without enforcement, law is meaningless. If I want to steal something or kill someone and all I'll be subject to is "review", I'll be inclined to do it. If the review proves I did it and everyone knows I did it, and that's all, so what? It is the use of force to some degree that makes law something more than a guideline, the ignoring of which is without serious consequences.

My real concern is, how do we make sure corrupt individuals don't take law to the extreme? How do we make sure the review process is as just as possible?

That's what we really need to figure out. I would argue that as a start our current jury selection process needs to be discarded. We tend to get the people who should not be making these decisions on juries. It has become something to avoid, so most competent people do. That needs to change.

Some could argue the same about Iraq.

Hmm. The bait is hanging there, but I'm gonna leave it alone.

Josh Cryer · 2003-06-14 14:01:27

Without enforcement, law is meaningless. If I want to steal something or kill someone and all I'll be subject to is "review", I'll be inclined to do it.

Ahh, had you included the second sentence after that one, then you'd know well and good that I wasn't suggesting that we ?throw out? the punishment process. I was merely saying that before punishment is carried out, a review is necessary, otherwise we'd have people punishing others simply because their ideologies clash, and nothing more.

I am in total agreement with the suggestion that enforcement and punishment go hand in hand. But I disagree that enforcement is more important than review.

What's the first thing a police officer says when he arrives on a scene, generally speaking? ?What happened?? A police officer even seeks out different viewpoints so that he knows who to arrest.

I would argue that as a start our current jury selection process needs to be discarded.

I honestly don't know enough about current jury selection beyond what I've seen on TV. If you're saying that it's unjust for the participants in a trial to select half the jury for each side (that's how I think it works), then I might agree with that.

But I think this goes further than just the jury. Because, like I said, I think review is important. And if people avoid the jury completely (as in some cases, in fact- need I even say it), they aren't giving it justice.

Hmm. The bait is hanging there, but I'm gonna leave it alone.

Ahh, wise choise.

Nah, playing aside; what you were saying earlier about guns, I don't think that discussion was off topic at all. But Iraq certainly would be, and I agree with you, let's not go there.

Cobra Commander · 2003-06-18 15:47:49

I was merely saying that before punishment is carried out, a review is necessary, otherwise we'd have people punishing others simply because their ideologies clash, and nothing more.

I see. It seems we may have another point of complete agreement. If the enforcement were carried out without determining the crime and circumstances surrounding it, it would cease to be law enforcement and would be vigilante justice. The controlled and consistent application of force is the backbone of law, which implies review in its execution.

I honestly don't know enough about current jury selection beyond what I've seen on TV. If you're saying that it's unjust for the participants in a trial to select half the jury for each side (that's how I think it works), then I might agree with that.

That's usually how it seems to work out, but there is a deeper problem, and I speak from personal experience on this, so I'm only referencing what I've seen in courtrooms in Detroit. It may not apply to the entire country, but it's probably pretty consistent.
Most people don't want to serve on a jury. It's a pain in the ass, they lose several days of work and are only compensated $5. It costs twelve to park for the day. Consequently, most people find any way they can to get out of it. Those that are left are not people that I'd want making decisions that affect
my life. Usually only half of them are awake for the entire trial, and nearly a third of those conscious don't know what's going on half the time. Sure, there's always a few reasonable people that actually pay attention, but they are the minority.
On a related note, a cop gave me this advice once: If you're going on trial and can choose a jury trial or to have a judge hear your case, if your not guilty, pick the judge. If you are, pick the jury, your lawyer can probably fool them.
The solution is complex and maybe unworkable, but I would suggest compensating jurors an amount equal to a day's wages for every day they serve and, more difficult, trying to create the impression that jury duty is a civic responsibility rather than something to be avoided. I actually know people who don't register to vote to avoid being picked. Joke's on them, I was informed that the jury pool is pulled from drivers licenses
We'd have a hell of a time doing this here, but if we've gotta build a new system for Mars anyway, we might as well fix a few bugs.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-09-01 14:17:31

Negotiations are underway to avoid conflict and damage to spacecraft between international moon missions
https://phys.org/news/2022-08-underway- … -moon.html

Space Force building ground station in Alaska ahead of launch of Arctic satcom mission
https://spacenews.com/space-force-build … m-mission/

Russia’s Plan To Withdraw From ISS Is Not the End of ‘Science Diplomacy’
https://science.thewire.in/aerospace/ru … acy-ocean/

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-03-15 14:18:19

The system of the Antarctic Treaty helping to regulate international relations and agreements with respect to Antarctica

Antarctic expedition gets up close and personal with a melting glacier
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/antarctic-exp … 37662.html

"Canada's not a signatory to the Antarctic Treaty system, so we don't have a physical presence down there," he said

South Korea U-turns on 69-hour working week after youth backlash

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ … h-backlash

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-03-15 15:56:18)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2003-05-07 15:01:08

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#77 2003-05-08 04:48:38

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#78 2003-05-08 07:02:36

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#79 2003-05-08 07:27:54

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#80 2003-05-09 18:28:22

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#81 2003-05-09 22:20:40

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#82 2003-05-09 22:37:28

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#83 2003-05-09 23:45:19

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#84 2003-05-10 08:51:59

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#85 2003-05-10 12:51:21

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#86 2003-05-10 13:51:35

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#87 2003-05-12 15:37:20

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#88 2003-05-12 17:02:46

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#89 2003-05-12 23:53:44

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#90 2003-05-13 11:20:41

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#91 2003-05-13 14:30:57

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#92 2003-05-13 14:45:10

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#93 2003-05-19 09:22:03

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#94 2003-06-13 19:17:49

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#95 2003-06-14 01:02:52

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#96 2003-06-14 01:48:49

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#97 2003-06-14 14:01:27

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#98 2003-06-18 15:47:49

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#99 2022-09-01 14:17:31

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

#100 2023-03-15 14:18:19

Re: Draft Laws for Mars - Laws for the Peaceful Settlement of Mars

Board footer