There is a piece in the National Geographic for January 2008 (for more about the high prairie search "prairie" at www.ngm.com) about North Dakota and the High Plains between the Rocky Mountains and the area in eastern North Dakota about 200 miles west of the Minnesota line. The High Prairie is the prairie east of the Rockies running from Oklahoma to Edmonton, Canada. The story and pictures were of North Dakota.
The story was sad from the human perspective. The northern tier railroad owners and the United States government tried to turn the area into farms -- about a quarter section each, 160 acres, give or take. The farmers came from Norway, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Ukraine. They built homes and barns and broke the ground. They created towns with schools, creameries, churches, stores, granaries, stores, dance halls, libraries. And then economics and weather began to confront the dreams of these resiliant and hopeful people.
The rains did not come, the wind blew most of the time,the area was vast and lonely and worse yet, unforgiving. Human life began to leave and to die off. The towns began to die. But, the death has been slow. Slow because the economics of the area and climate is such that crops can be grown on large acreages, it is possible to live on the High Plains. But, economics causes the acreages to become larger and larger. As a result, human habitation will not leave the area but the numbers of inhabitants will become less and less. Only those who find the vastness of sky and the extremes of the elements will be able to live there. (I wish I were younger and more knowing of my self. I think I could find a home in the High Plains.)
The fate of the mining towns in the Rockies was the same but their deaths happened much more rapidly. Here is a site dedicated to ghost towns of the United States West. The towns were quickly created in confined spaces and survuved as long as the local mine, mines or sluicing operations were profitable. Once they were not, the towns began to die. Some came alive again when skiing became popular and the wealthy wanted a third or fourth home in the Rocky Mountains. See Park City, Utah, Aspen, Kellogg and more. The West and the High Plains are alive again, but not in the way first imagined. And some of the area is returnining to what it once was. See here and here.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Saturday, December 1, 2007
The Second Amendment
The DC Gun Case. Opinion. The case is now before the United States Supreme Court.
On March 9, 2007 the DC Court of Appeals reversed a trial court decision essentially saying that the District of Colombia could prohibit the ownership of guns kept in one's own home. The trial court said that the right to bear arms was tied to the requirement of a well regulated militia. Since owning guns had nothing to do with a well regulated militia the guns could not be kept in one's home.
The DC Court of Appeals reversed the decision essentially saying that the District of Columbia by its interpretation of the Second Amendment would render the amendment meaningless.
I am not going to get into an extensive legal discussion. What I want to say it is my understanding of history and the meaning of the Second Amendment.
The first point I want to make is that our country and our law were based upon revolution and the disassociation of our government from a tyranical government.
The right of revolution is based on the natural rights of man. Our Constitution, even if it could, does not deny the natural rights of man. Indeed, the Constitution is based upon the natural rights of man.
So, what does the second amendment say? It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shallnot be infringed”
Our revolution and our detachment from England would not have taken place but for the fact that people in America had formed a militia and that militia used armaments. The revolution would not have taken place and the militia would not have existed but for the power of armaments owned by the members of the militia and the power of the malitia t gain armamens from others.
Thus, the militia the Constitution speaks of is the militia necessary for the security of a free State. A free State sometimes can only exist by virtue of a force of arms by a militia. With this understanding, every person has a right to keep and bear arms because every person has a right to become part of a militia and can support a militia with a their arms.
The state recognizes that sometimes revolution by a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State and the people desirous of maintaining that free State have a right to keep and bear arms and that that right cannot be infringed.
Though a State may regulate the armaments, the State may not prevent a person from having them.
On March 9, 2007 the DC Court of Appeals reversed a trial court decision essentially saying that the District of Colombia could prohibit the ownership of guns kept in one's own home. The trial court said that the right to bear arms was tied to the requirement of a well regulated militia. Since owning guns had nothing to do with a well regulated militia the guns could not be kept in one's home.
The DC Court of Appeals reversed the decision essentially saying that the District of Columbia by its interpretation of the Second Amendment would render the amendment meaningless.
I am not going to get into an extensive legal discussion. What I want to say it is my understanding of history and the meaning of the Second Amendment.
The first point I want to make is that our country and our law were based upon revolution and the disassociation of our government from a tyranical government.
The right of revolution is based on the natural rights of man. Our Constitution, even if it could, does not deny the natural rights of man. Indeed, the Constitution is based upon the natural rights of man.
So, what does the second amendment say? It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shallnot be infringed”
Our revolution and our detachment from England would not have taken place but for the fact that people in America had formed a militia and that militia used armaments. The revolution would not have taken place and the militia would not have existed but for the power of armaments owned by the members of the militia and the power of the malitia t gain armamens from others.
Thus, the militia the Constitution speaks of is the militia necessary for the security of a free State. A free State sometimes can only exist by virtue of a force of arms by a militia. With this understanding, every person has a right to keep and bear arms because every person has a right to become part of a militia and can support a militia with a their arms.
The state recognizes that sometimes revolution by a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State and the people desirous of maintaining that free State have a right to keep and bear arms and that that right cannot be infringed.
Though a State may regulate the armaments, the State may not prevent a person from having them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)