53358

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!boulder!ucsu!ucsu.Colorado.EDU!fcrary
From: [e-mail] (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: the usual
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 14:07:56 GMT
Lines: 77

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>Yes, I am pro-gun, and yes, I do disagree with this statement.
>>Nuclear weapons in and of themselves are dangerous.  Radioactive
>>decay of plutonium and uranium, as well as the tritium in the
>>weapon, tends to be somewhat dangerous to living things.
>>(Can you say "neutron flux"?)

>	Can you say, "I get more background radiation from living in
>Denver or having an office in a limestone building than I do standing
>next to a power reactor at full power or standing next to a nuclear
>warhead that is armed?"  Look up "shielding" in your dictionary.  You
>don't need six feet of lead to make decent shielding; your dead skin
>cell layer does an excellent job on alpha particles, and neutrons
>are slowed by mere *water*.  What do you think 75% of you is?

But whatever the neutrons hit has a good chance of absorbing the
neutron and becoming radioactive itself. Mostly, that means water
turning into (harmless) heavy water. But some neutrons would 
also hit bones, and the resulting harmfull, secondard radioactives
would remain in the body for decades. I think an unshielded nuclear
warhead could reasonably be considered a public health hazard.

As for a shielded warhead, I think a fair amount of maintaince
is required for it to remain safely shielded (e.g. storage in
a dry, temperature-regulated facility, etc...) For private
ownership to be unregulated, I think a single individual must
be able not only to keep the weapon, but keep it in a safe
condition. If any random private citizen could not properly
keep, maintain and store a nuclear weapon, then some regulation
is clearly appropriate.

>>  Plus these things have no self-
>>defense purposes.  It's kinda hard to justify their use as
>>a militia weapon when at best they are meant for battlefield use
>>(low-yield weapons) or at worst for industrial target obliteration
>>(translation:  cities and population centers).

>	If the militia has as its job the overthrow of an illegal
>government, they are indeed useful weapons to the militia.

I disagree with this purpose: The job of the militia is to defend
themselves and their community. If you look at the American 
revolution as an example, the militias won by seperating themselves
from, and becoming independent of, a repressive government. They
didn't overthrow it, and those communities (Canada and England, for 
example) that didn't defend themselves were still under that same
old regime. If the role of the militia were offensive, to go out and
destroy repressive governments, nuclear weapons _might_ be appropriate.
But their jobs is defensive, and nuclear weapons aren't suited
for that.

There is also the question of personal and collective arms: The
Second Amendment definately protects ownership of personal
weapons (since the very nature of the militia requires members
to provide their own arms.) But it isn't clear if it covers
other arms. Certainly, not all members would supply (for example)
a tank, only a few could or (if they were to be used effectively)
should. However, those providing the heavy weapons have a 
disproportionate control over the militia and its fierpower.
The militias, as the framers envisioned them, were extremely
democratic: If only 50% of the members supported the cause, only
50% would respond to a muster, and the militia's firepower would
be proportionately reduced. Militia firepower and the popular
will were, therefore, linked. But if a small minority of the
members supplied a large fraction of the firepower (in the
form of heavy weapons) this would all change: The militia's
firepower would depend on the will of a small minority, not
of the general public. Worse, that minority would be quite
different from the general public (at the very least, they
would be much richer.) As a result, I think the nature and
character of the militia requires that each member provide
a roughly equal share of the militia's firepower: His personal
weapons, and some equitable fraction of a squad's heavier firepower.

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder