1997-05-06 - Drifting toward 2nd Amendment arguments (Was: Responses to Tim May’s criticism …)

Header Data

From: Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com>
To: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Message Hash: 16aa374bcbb1d489f464a37d01aa9317b078107a3faa18f20158d1dee8637af3
Message ID: <199705060010.RAA00342@server1.chromatic.com>
Reply To: <Pine.3.89.9705051657.A29826-0100000@netcom19>
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-06 00:33:18 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 08:33:18 +0800

Raw message

From: Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 08:33:18 +0800
To: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Subject: Drifting toward 2nd Amendment arguments (Was: Responses to Tim May's criticism ...)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9705051657.A29826-0100000@netcom19>
Message-ID: <199705060010.RAA00342@server1.chromatic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> > I don't completely like the first amendment argument because it is
> > solely based on claiming that software is, first and foremost,
> > expression.  In fact, software has mechanism and side effect of
> > mechanism.  If software were strictly expression, it is hard to
> > imagine how a multi-billion industry could have spawned from such an
> > inert practice.  Another example: one could argue that crafting an
> > grenade launcher is artistic expression, but surely few would consider
> > THAT argument when faced with such an "expressive" neighbor.
> I concur. A citizen has the right to manufacture a grenade launcher under
> the Second Amendment (irrespective of what judges scared into submission
> by Roosevelt et al may have ruled), not the First.

This discussion is starting to drift away from the original point ...

I suspect that the Second Amendment was created strictly for the defense
of the citizenry from a tyrannical government.  I have a hard time with
"the right to sport shooting" argument, as there were no such mention in
the Amendment.  I think if one wants to argue the Second Amendment, one
should restrict the issues to genuine and effective civil defense against
a tyrannical government.  I would suspect that few would tolerate such
a sweeping right today, as it is hard to imagine what would constitute
genuine and effective civil defense against a tyrannical government given
the power of today's governments.

In some convoluted way, one could argue that encryption is one way to
defend ourselves against a tyrannical state as the state's power is held
in check if they cannot arbitrarily gather information on anything or
anyone.  Of course, to say that could effectively diminish the argument
for physical defense as one is effectively trusting the integrity of one's
interconnect to the NII/GII.  If you don't trust the government, you
certainly should have difficulty believing your ?II connection is safe and

I would really prefer to keep the follow up's to this message on private
E-Mail, as it is starting to get off-topic.  Thanks.


Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer/Chief Cut And Paste Officer
Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707
Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua@chromatic.com