Help: Gun debate thread

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 20 Apr 00 - 06:36 PM

Hey GAGoyle, I wondered if you were ever coming out from under your rock again! I missed you

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Gary T
Date: 20 Apr 00 - 06:20 PM

Well, gosh, Mbo, you just need to find a music-related web site. (VBG)

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Mbo
Date: 20 Apr 00 - 05:40 PM

Wow, you folks sure know a lot about the Constitution! All I know is "We the people"! Guess I know more about music or something...

--Mbo

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 20 Apr 00 - 05:33 PM

Didn't know that the Creator supports the NRA through "inalienable rights". Maybe that's why they hired Charlton Heston. :)

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. :)

Frank

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: JedMarum
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 07:19 PM

I am sure that most Americans agree that the consitution provides them the right to bear arms, and that means to them they have a right to own fire-arms. I am equally sure that any significant attempt to prohibit the ownership of firearms, would result very quickly in mass civil disobedience, major bloodshed, and most likely a second US Civil War. (I don't condone this, but I would expect it).

I can't see why US citizens need automtic weapons, but I understand the arguement that says the constitution allows for each citizen to arm himself, not for hunting, not for sport, but for self protection including for self protection from unlawful military organizations that may be threatening them. The courts have upheld the major components of these arguements. Change the consitution? It's possible ... but unlikely since ownership is soo pervasive, and support for the right so widespread? And why should all this take place?? Why should we take guns away from a huge protion of our society? Why should we punish all because a few are irresponsible, and a few more are willfull destroyers of life?

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Gary T
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 07:06 PM

Caitrin, the militia is obviously made up individual militiamen, who are the people mentioned in the amendment's second phrase. In the definition Midchuck shared with us about 10 posts up, you can see that the militia in question is an unorganized body, not an organized one. It still DOES NOT say that you ONLY get to bear arms on the CONDITION that you're in some militia. It says you get to bear them BECAUSE we NEED a militia, said militia being essentially every citizen, if and when needed.

To paraphrase it in modern language: Since having every citizen ready to put up a good fight is necessary to protect our country's security and freedom, the right...

Note how compactly the original language states the above. Good writing. Unfortunately, "well regulated" gets misinterpreted as meaning "carefully controlled and organized", and "militia" gets misinterpreted as "National Guard". When one considers the amendment in the context of the political climate and language usage of the time when it was written, it becomes a l-o-n-g stretch, and an ungrammatical one, to read it as meaning "Only within an organized militia..."

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 05:48 PM

"Point: change (or amend) the damn constitution!" Is a demand--not a point from debate--

Well said, Gary T--I am a legal wonk, among other things, and I have spend many happy hours pouring over discussion of the principles involved here--I think that a real discussion of the issue can only begin when people understand the ideas that you have expressed--

McGrath made a mocking sort of inquiry as to whether "Common Sense" was provided for in the constitution, which is sort of amusing, because the fundamental principles were actually put forward in Thomas Paine's pamphlet, entitled "Common Sense" printed in that wonderful year, 1776.

The issue of "Gun Control" is not about guns, or arms, at all, it is about the degree of control that we should allow any government to have over our lives. If you do not address this question, and it's implications, as reflected in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, you are not really in the debate at all. Furthermore, if you don't understand this question, you haven't got a clue to what America is about--

So check out Tom Paine--he is the font from whence this all springs(or at least he said it best) (Kelida, you should read him--I think you may be related!)Common Sense

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Caitrin
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 05:34 PM

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The second amendment does not say a well-regulated militiaman is necessary to the security of a free state. It says a well regulated militia is necessary. A militia is an organized body. I think the language is perfectly clear too, Gary.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,gargoyle
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 04:54 PM

kendall - when do you shut up?

rick fielding - why not actually start a new thread?

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 04:48 PM

When do I get my bazooka?

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Gary T
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 04:19 PM

From a previous post in this thread by Bob Schwarer:
"Well regulated" had nothing to do with being under someone's control. It had to do with the person being proficient in what he was doing. I can send you a copy of the manual of arms of the time showing what a "well regulated" soldier or militiaman was expected to do.
From a previous post in this thread by yours truly:
Smitty's first post and Bob Schwarer's last post conform to the principle I've heard that the "well regulated milita" potentially consists of every citizen. Although the National Guard is sometimes called the Militia, it is not the same thing. It is instead essentially an auxiliary branch of the U.S. Army. The citizen milita mentioned in the 2nd amendment is not a regular, organized, ongoing body--it is everyday folks equipped to fight tyranny if and when necessary. Note that the amendment does not say that one must be an official member of the militia in order to claim the right to bear arms, it merely mentions that a free state needs the capability to have one--in other words, the citizens must be capable of effectively resisting an oppressive government.

Many seem to think that the "well regulated militia" phrase restricts the second amendment's rights to certain organized groups. That is simply not what it says. If the constitution's writers had wanted to have such limits, they were more than capable of making that clear and unambiguous. While it's unfortunate that the definition of the phrase "well regulated", in this context, has become archaic, the language is plain enough in not requiring official membership in any organization in order to avail oneself of the stated right.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 04:17 PM

This has been interesting and courtious, perhaps I'll try a "part two"

Rick

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Ed Pellow
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 03:54 PM

Richard

Have you actually followed this case in detail?

Your comments suggest that you've blindly accepted Daily Mail editorials

Ed

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 03:36 PM

Well spare a thought for the poor UK farmer who has just been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder for shooting a gang of habitual recidervist youths who burgled his isolated farmhouse in the dead of night.

Had he had no gun - he would be dead, I have no doubt, or at least been severely beaten. But he had a gun, so now is in prison for life.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,Bob S.
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 03:27 PM

sure we have a militia. We're it.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Midchuck
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 03:20 PM

who is tormenting what? A WELL REGULATED MILITIA...there is no militia, well or poorly regulated..

From Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition:

"Militia: ..... 2. In the United States, all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not already members of the regular armed forces: Members of the National Guard, Organized Reserve Corps (Army and Air), and the Naval and Marine Reserves constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia."

So most of us are in it, except those of us who are too old (like me) or the wrong sex. We probably need to work on that definition.

Peter.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 02:03 PM

who is tormenting what? A WELL REGULATED MILITIA...there is no militia, well or poorly regulated..

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 12:46 PM

Hi M.Ted. Now don't shoot me for this (I'd rather swap chords with you than argue politics) but your comment to Mooh:

"I think that it is rather presumptous and impertinent of him, (and others) to make the assumption that they understand our culture and laws so well as to be able to demand changes of us--but that is just my opinion--"

makes me wonder about something. Lets assume (and this might not be the case here) that someone from another country has read widely, has a strong grasp on political documents, is articulate enough to present cohesive thoughts on a number of subjects not directly related to themselves...well you get the idea. Is that person's opinion not as (or more) valid than someone smack dab in the middle of a situation, with limited understanding of how Govt. works, and perhaps a hair-trigger to boot? (you gotta admit, all countries have lots of those)

Just from personal experience, I've found that very few Canadians have a clue about their OWN constitution, can barely name the last 5 Prime Ministers...and some even think that the QUEEN (of all people) has a say in our affairs! I'd be the first to admit that an American (or Ozzie, or Brit) with an education and a bit of study time would know more about my country than the average citizen who may be operating on emotion alone. I especially think that the opinions of an INFORMED observer shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, simply because they aren't a resident.

I think for the most part the opinions in this thread are pretty well thought out, and I tend to give them equal credence...whatever country they come from. I even managed to do that in the recent "Canajun" threads!

Rick

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Midchuck
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 11:52 AM

"THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS CONTAINED IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!! "

Yes, there is. If you read the wording as it reads on its face rather than tormenting it into the meaning you want, as the U. S. Courts have chosen to do.

People who say "get over it" seem usually to be people who want the debate to end right after they've had their say. Keeps them from being argued with. Makes it possible for them to believe they've proved their point.

Peter.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Mooh
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 11:39 AM

Hey, it isn't personal! Healthy disagreement results in progress in our various lands and governments. This issue is one that makes us different but it doesn't mean I don't "think much of" anyone. My own country has faults, and I do think that law should change with the times, rather than be frozen in time. As a race I think we can do better. Figuratively at least, swords to ploughshares is not a bad idea.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 10:54 AM

Just a bit convoluted there Kat--not directed at you--simply meant no one had expressed an opinion on the issue of guns in Chechnya, unless you had--

By the way, I think that the majority of gun owners do handle them with the appropriate amount of care--otherwise. we'd all be dead...

Peter, Mooh is in no position to change our Constitution, because he is not(how can we phrase this delicately?) a United States Citizen--Technically, he doesn't, therefore, have any of the rights that are afforded to us by the Constitution, and doesn't think much of them, and doesn't think much of us because we take them seriously--

I think that it is rather presumptous and impertinent of him, (and others) to make the assumption that they understand our culture and laws so well as to be able to demand changes of us--but that is just my opinion--

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Allan C.
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 10:18 AM

I think kat brings up an interesting thought. In many parts of this country, (and I would imagine in others as well,) people who are raised with guns are, for the most part, taught or absorb a real sense of the lethal capablility of them. They also develop a respect for such issues of safety as a matter of course. This is not to say that such learning does not exist elsewhere, but I believe it is not so general in its application.

Kids in West Virginia (where, I am told, there are more guns per capita than anywhere else in the U.S.) grow up in homes where guns are omnipresent. Most absorb the knowledge I have mentioned. Another thing they soon get to know is that there are some things you just don't do because they know that finding themselves on the business end of a gun is a real possibility.

"'Scuse me while I go get my gun" is probably a rather commonly spoken phrase in such areas. And they sell almost as many bullets as they do cigarettes.

As for me, I tend to avoid confrontations in a land where "He took a notion" is a viable defense in a court of law ;-)

On the other hand, it should be noted that West Virginia has one of the nation's lowest interpersonal crime rates. I am thinking there is some kind of correlation here.

Personally, I believe in and support the total elimination of handguns and will not argue the point with anyone. But I feel equally as strongly that non-automatic rifles have a place in our world among those who can act responsibly. For my money, all the rest of the firearms should be available only to the armed forces (and I am not really all that sure about that!).

We could save a whole lot of grief here if we would all just go back to bows and arrows.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,Enough, Already!
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 10:16 AM

Jeez, folks, get over it!

THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS CONTAINED IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!!

Better spend some time learning English grammar and composition.The courts have confirmed this in a number of decisions over the years dealing with "arms" of which guns are only one type.

If you feel the need to justify universal gun ownership, at least find a valid arguement!

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 09:39 AM

I read something interesting in the paper the other day. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, a really crack shot with a musket could get off two rounds per minute. Hard to imagine the forefathers had the foresight to envision and include the rapid, multi-kills-in-a-mniute of semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

MTed, if you are talking about me, I don't hide anything that I have written, op/eds or otherwise and I am not an editor. I have never written on Chechnya because I do not feel qualified. I do not know enough about it. I include my op/ed pieces here, from time to time, because people ask or they are on topic.

I was raised like Caits, with guns and a healthy respect for their fatal capacity; sadly, it seems, the majority are not being raised that way today and the issue of gun owners controling their guns is a good one. Personally, I would prefer none, as Mooh has stated.

kat

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Midchuck
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 09:26 AM

"Point: change (or amend) the damn constitution! Maybe you need guns because you have guns."

If you can damn the Constitution and mean it, you should go live in a country without a constitution. And the sooner the better. You might eventually change your mind.

You can damn the Constitution because it contains a guarantee of free speech. You are taking irresponsible advantage of that guarantee, but you would be upset if it were taken away from you. Yet you feel that the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms should be taken away because a number of people take irresponsible advantage of it.

I would ask if you were familiar with the term, "consistency," if I were sure I could spell it.

Peter.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 09:20 AM

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA..

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Mooh
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 09:13 AM

M.Ted,

I live in hope. I just believe that the world would be better without guns. Sorry I don't know what your last paragraph has to do with the issue. I never suggested I had a proposal for banning guns, just that they should be.(I'm really more concerned with handguns and non-hunting weapons to start.) Why not, all sorts of things are disallowed in society, but I'm not so naive as to assume that a ban would be totally successful, and it would take generations for society to adapt. Start now as an individual and maybe in time guns will disappear from common use. We may not ever agree.

As for a principled complaint, are you kidding?

Point: change (or amend) the damn constitution! Maybe you need guns because you have guns.

Peace (without guns), Mooh.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 19 Apr 00 - 12:10 AM

Mooh,

How do you propose to outlaw guns? Even those superior intellects in the European Economic Union have not outlawed guns--

Only thing I can figure is that there is a principled objection to the idea that our constitution says that we have a right to bear arms--

My experience has been that, for one reason and another, we have had a lot of reason to use guns here in the US, and so we tend to have more of them than people who have less use--curiously, there has been no "principled" complaint about the possesion and use of weapons in places like Chechnya--has our beloved editor perhaps written an editorial she has neglected to share?

At any rate, I think there is a certain amount of bitterness over on the British side owing to the fact that we once took some potshots at a few of their own--sorry bout that--

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 18 Apr 00 - 10:18 PM

maybe an iq test along with that waiting period?

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Caitrin
Date: 18 Apr 00 - 10:10 PM

Gun control is very important. I think the first step is in gun owners controlling their own guns. My father owns a shotgun. I know how to load it and fire it and take care of it; he's taken me out to the farm to shoot at targets several times. I also know that it is NEVER to be left loaded, it is NEVER pointed at anyone, and if it isn't being fired, the safety is ON. He had to go on a rescue squad call where a woman was loading her husband's gun into a car trunk (they were moving to a new house). The gun had been left ready to fire. When she put it in the trunk, it fired and perforated her chest. If people are going to own guns, they need to control them.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Mooh
Date: 18 Apr 00 - 09:41 PM

Point: the fewest or most number of gun laws does not necessarily mean those laws are intended to control guns, are effective at controlling guns, are enforced, etc. One law in one place may be as effective as several in another place. Therefore what the hell does the number of laws have to do with it? The only law that will ultimately matter in a society that wants not to recognize vengence is the law(s) that outlaws guns for good.Btw, what is a handgun designed for if not to be concealed and for killing people and at short range? They are not a serious hunting weapon and as protection, geez, whatever happened to......oh never mind, this has been flogged to death (as opposed to shot).

Peace (and I mean it), Mooh.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Midchuck
Date: 18 Apr 00 - 09:31 PM

What she said.

Peter.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Apr 00 - 09:27 PM

The glamour of violence is portrayed throughout our society through the media, etc. In almost every depiction, guns are included, so...whether the problem is violence or guns, they are inextricably linked, especially in the minds of impressionable children.

It used to be mostly the adverts were what influenced people so much, got a pain, take a pill type stuff. Now, IMO, it is more the shows, films, etc. themselves which have pervaded the consciousness of our country, so that we now have children thinking got a problem, blow it away in many cases, with no comprehension of the fatal consequences.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 18 Apr 00 - 08:21 PM

An interesting point which does not change the facts.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Midchuck
Date: 18 Apr 00 - 06:40 PM

"A new study just came up with this..the states with the most gun laws have the fewest gun related deaths. The states with the fewest gun laws have the most gun related deaths. Most laws? Massachusettes..the fewest laws? Louisiana."

Are you talking per capita? Vermont is, I believe, the only state in the union with no handgun carry restriction or permit requirement at all, concealed or not. And we have the third lowest per capita rate of violent crime in the country, after the two Dakotas.

"OK MOses, what do you say to that? Its a common but eroneous belief that prohibition didnt work..actually, it cut comsumption of alcohol by over 90%."

It also made it fashionable to break the law, thus setting the stage for the drug culture. And it made sure that a lot of what was consumed was poison, so I doubt that the percentage of people killed by alcohol went down as much as the consumption rate.

Peter.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,Sinsull
Date: 18 Apr 00 - 06:32 PM

In the immortal words of my beloved Dad and stalwart member of the NRA:"If JFK had been beaten to death with a telephone, would they regulate AT&T?"

Actually, I think they did, no?

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 18 Apr 00 - 06:04 PM

A new study just came up with this..the states with the most gun laws have the fewest gun related deaths. The states with the fewest gun laws have the most gun related deaths. Most laws? Massachusettes..the fewest laws? Louisiana. OK MOses, what do you say to that? Its a common but eroneous belief that prohibition didnt work..actually, it cut comsumption of alcohol by over 90%. Bad side? it created a crime wave like this country had never seen before.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 18 Apr 00 - 04:32 PM

I am not sure what the debate here is even about--I don't think it is an issue on the table anywhere(at least anywhere in the States) that all of America's guns be taken away, yet when people get anywhere near a point, that is the point that the seem to allude to--

But, that said, I think it is important to address McGrath's point about violence--America is a very violent place--yes, it is true!!!

I don't think that those of you on the other side of the Atlantic really apreciate this--in fact, I know you don't because I talk until I am blue in the face to our European friends and they still don't get the concept about what parts of town to stay away from, and how to walk down the street so that no one messes with you--and what parts of the country it isn't a good idea to try to stroll around and take pictures in--

When I was in Denver last Spring, just after after the Columbine High School incident, there were several other serial killings that were in the news--

Same deal with the Kayla Rowland thing in Michigan--at the same time,there were several other equally horrifying indidents that only made the local papers--

In Big Rapids Mich, four high school students kidnapped a 68 year old disabled veteran, shove him into the trunk of their car, where they either stabbed or shot him(I forget which) and then drove him around and showed him to their friends(none of them bothered to call the police)--They were eventually pulled over for a traffic infraction, and the officers found the man, by this time dead, in the trunk--

Although it frequently involves guns, this violence is not rooted in the availability or legality of guns, and often, the most amazing instances of violence don't involve guns at all--

I can't really say where the violence comes from, but it is there, and seems to be getting worse--

This violence is really the issue, not the Constitution, not the NRA, not what is or is not on TV--

My experience has been when there is a particularly egregious incident of "violence" ther is a great public debate, which people quickly sidetrack to a discussion their favorite running topic, which is one of the above, or maybe "educational reform" or "speed reading" or "school prayer" or some such thing--

Two years later, we end up with gun locks that don't work, federal reading programs that don't work, and much needed tax reform that doesn't work--and so it goes, until another unfortunate gets blown to pieces--

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 25 Mar 00 - 08:19 AM

I own a gun. I am well trained in the use of it (retired G-man) Now, am I numb enough to think that that little .38 would make the slightest difference if the "Government" wanted to send goons to bother me in any way? Nonsense!! I dont remember the last time a wild animal or a mob tried to invade my house. No out of control indians either...Someone said an unarmed free society is an oxymoron, I'm surprised that there has been so little comment from our GB friends.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,flattop
Date: 25 Mar 00 - 06:38 AM

But if anyone gets guns, shouldn't the blind get them before people with good eyesight, rather than the otherway around. After all, the blind can't can't see if it's government goons from the Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco department kicking in their door or just their paranoid neighbours in a constitutionally sanctioned quest for happiness.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 00 - 05:04 AM

I have visited other countries where the police are armed and it does not make me feel safe but very unsafe.

This argument reminds me of the fox-hunting debate. Those who like to dress up, in like company ride around on land that they would not usually be allowed, claim that they not doing this but are controlling foxes. This is as much nonsense as bringing in ancient laws and rulings to support the fact that some people, LIKE guns and don't want them taken away.

Those people have to decide if doing what they like is worth the price that everyone has to pay.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,tedlo
Date: 24 Mar 00 - 11:00 PM

just read the threads on the gun " debate".In many cases I have never read so much convoluted thinking in my life. the gun "debate" will never be solved because tho' some may like to think the 2nd amendment means what they want it to it's written in plain english. Do your research before you jump in with wild statements. You may find that you need to adjust your thinking. tedlo

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 00 - 09:56 PM

"You want to disarm the police too?" Well it seems to work pretty well where I live, and in other countries where I'd want to live...

But that wasn't what I was suggesting. I was responding to Kim C's story "The soldiers barged into their home and beheaded Grandfather while his family watched. I said to her, that's why we have a 2nd Amendment in this country."

I pointed out that the 2nd Amernment didn't protect Amadou Diallo, and it wouldn't have even if he'd exercised it by carrying a gun. The only difference that would have made would have been that we'd never have heard of him, and his killers would never have even faced trial.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Mar 00 - 05:26 PM

Very good questions, Frank. Thanks!

Too often the kind of thinking that the far right militia engenders leads to senesless actions. I think the general conservative public starts to believe all of the fearfilled rhetoric and takes things into their own hands, based on their own perceptions.

This week, two little girls, about 9 years old, were out walking with a family dog of one of them. The dog was with them, by the river, no livestock, no other pets around, nobody but them. Out stepped a neighbour, stood on his front step, took aim at the dog and shot it, in front of the little girls. The dog survived but lost an eye. The girls still are having a hard time sleeping, eating, going to school.

I fear this kind of person, but that doesn't make me want to go out and buy a gun.

kat

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 24 Mar 00 - 03:52 PM

This debate promises to shed more heat than light. The Second Amendment has been misinterpreted. It has to do with the right of a militia to arm when invaded by a foreign country. It doesn't necessarilly permit every citizen to own hand guns or automatic weapons.

The notion that only outlaws will have guns is true if you find that they get their guns by stealing them from "honest" folk. Hence, the more private government, gun ownership, the more they will wind up in the hands of outlaws.

There is a prevalent distrust of the police, these days. I wonder what would happen if there weren't any policeman? Who would be safe?

The "government" is an amorphous enemy these days to many who feel their rights are trampled on. And yet, without this government would anyone have any rights at all?

And what is this "government" anyhow? Are they elected representatives by the people? Doesn't that make the people accountable for the actions of the government?

This anti-government talk is usually the rhetoric of those who claim states rights over federal decrees. But State governments are governments also. Assuming that governments are inherently corrupt, would you rather have 50 corrupt local governments or one central one?

As it is seen, today, in the U.S., gun ownership as a protection is perfectly worthless in extirpating Naziism. Many American Nazis have guns. Who are the outlaws? Is the local right-wing militia your best friend?

Just asking questions, here, because I don't have answers.

Frank

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Jim Krause
Date: 24 Mar 00 - 03:24 PM

Lately I've rather been wondering if the whold gun debate thing really isn't a shouting match about guns, but about technology. How much firepower does a person really need? I see no logical reason why a civilian needs a more technologically advanced firearm than a Mauser model 1898 bold action rifle, or a Winchester model 1892 lever action rifle, or a breechloading double barrel shotgun. How many gun owners actually practice at the rifle range? Any deranged serial killer can spray the countryside or city street with a hail of bullets. Might be better if more manufacturers follow Smith & Wesson's example. And all this stuff about the big, bad Government gettin the drop on poor innocent citizens? Well, that big, bad Government is us. That's the way a democratic Rebpulic works.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,flattop
Date: 24 Mar 00 - 07:00 AM

Couldn't we blame the deaths on the people impeding the paths of free flying bullets?

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,High and Lonesome
Date: 24 Mar 00 - 02:00 AM

Remember, guns don't kill people, children with guns kill people. Or something like that. . .

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Midchuck
Date: 23 Mar 00 - 08:28 AM

Judging from recent headlines from NYC, we should arm the general public and disarm the police. We might be safer.

Edward Abbey, I think it was, pointed out that the slogan, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is not literally correct. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws and the government will have guns. That's what's really scary.

Peter.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: bob schwarer
Date: 23 Mar 00 - 07:54 AM

McGrath. You want to disarm the police too?