Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 20:20:59 -0400 From: drifter@stratos.net To: Frank Pawlak <fpawlak@execpc.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Does it's true? Message-ID: <19980627202059.A392@stratos.net> In-Reply-To: <980627174601.ZM27818@darkstar.connect.com>; from Frank Pawlak on Sat, Jun 27, 1998 at 05:46:01PM %2B0000 References: <199806270633.QAA16831@cimlogic.com.au> <jb@cimlogic.com.au> <980627063311.ZM23522@darkstar.connect.com> <19980627034631.A944@stratos.net> <980627174601.ZM27818@darkstar.connect.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 27, 1998 at 05:46:01PM +0000, Frank Pawlak wrote:
> On Jun 27, 3:46am, drifter@stratos.net wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Does it's true?
> > On Sat, Jun 27, 1998 at 06:33:11AM +0000, Frank Pawlak wrote:
> > > Overall you are probably better for it. In the US there are entirely too
> many
> > > guns walking around. Some of these kids with guns are better armed than I
> was
> > ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
> >
> > Interesting choice of words, possibly indicative of perspective?
> > Personification of guns, or "guns walking around", is probably
> > a phrase uttered by a gun-control advocate, whereas "criminals walking
> > around with guns" is maybe more likely to be spoken of by an NRA advocate.
> > Now, "kids walking around with guns," that's a toss-up!
> >
> > -Rob "Not to put words in to anybody's mouth :)"
>
> It is interesting that you did an in-depth analysis of my analogy. I was
> taking neither of the positions arrived at in your deduction. The is no
> question about the issue of personification of guns in the US. The citizens
> have been armed to the teeth since the Revolutionary War. Gun possession is
> covered by the Constitution. So far all well and good.
>
> Guns walking around probably refers to the guns per capita ratio in the US,
> which has increased rapidly in the last twenty years or so, and to the types of
> weapons that are being carried.
>
> By your response, I suspect that you are coming from one side or another of
> those positions that you put into my mouth.
>
> Frank
Don't mean to be obscure about it. In fact, a few years ago I
really didn't care about the gun-control issue, because it didn't affect
me. I didn't and still don't own a firearm, I never hunted, and the
only experience I ever had with a shotgun was a skeet-shooting trip I
took a few years ago.
My philosophical view tries to balance the legitimate need for
protecting society and kids with the need to protect individual rights
to defend oneself. If I were made dictator of America 200 years ago,
I might have written a provision allowing gun ownership by individuals
so long as potential owners received proper safety training and were
certified by a fair and due process of law (a law whose only intent
was to make sure qualified people owned guns and not a secret agenda
to simply /limit/ the number of guns). The only other restriction might
be for those convicted of violent crimes and (possibly) an age restriction.
But I am not a dictator, I am a U.S. citizen, and I happen to
believe in the rule of law. There are those who argue that the
Second Amendment is simply out of date and not "down with the '90s."
Our fore-fathers had muskets, and had no idea that one day there
would be Uzis and AK-47's. That is a common argument for why changing
times should result in changing laws. That is not necessarily an invalid
opinion, but our fore-fathers also realized the importance of /lawful/ and
/orderly/ change of the constitution. That is why there is an amendment
process that requires 2/3 of both houses of Congress and three-quarters
of the states.
I realize that "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the
defense of a free-society, the right to bear arms shall not be prohibited"
(that is not exactly verbatim, but close enough, if memory serves) is not
the most clearly-written part of the constitution.
It has led to all sorts of competing interpretations, from an
unconditional right, to (surprisingly endorsed by conservative Judge
Robert Bork) it only meaning the Feds couldn't ban a state's right to
raise a militia.
It stands to reason that many of these competing interpretations
have a lot to do with philosophical belief rather than analysis of law.
So, in cases like these, we ought to use precedent, which points
to the idea that some restriction (no concealed weapons) is okay, so long
as the general right to bear arms is not prohibited.
If people see a need for a change, let them do it by proper means,
not by simply ignoring the constitution.
-Rob
--
drifter@stratos.nospam.net (remove nospam to send)
"Ever notice that in every commercial about the Internet, advertising
geniuses can't resist having a bunch of kids staring into a monitor, awe-
struck, looking at a whale jumping out of the ocean? Or is it just me?"
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980627202059.A392>