From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Jun 27 20:01:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA13635 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 20:01:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from stratos.net (pm3-3-8.stratos.net [207.86.132.136]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA13602 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 20:01:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drifter@stratos.net) From: drifter@stratos.net Received: (from drifter@localhost) by stratos.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) id UAA00769; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 20:21:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19980627202059.A392@stratos.net> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 20:20:59 -0400 To: Frank Pawlak Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Does it's true? References: <199806270633.QAA16831@cimlogic.com.au> <980627063311.ZM23522@darkstar.connect.com> <19980627034631.A944@stratos.net> <980627174601.ZM27818@darkstar.connect.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1i In-Reply-To: <980627174601.ZM27818@darkstar.connect.com>; from Frank Pawlak on Sat, Jun 27, 1998 at 05:46:01PM +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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