regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (02/08/85)
REPRINTED FROM AN EARLIER BROADCAST: The real flap over gun control is that EVERY TIME WEAPONS HAVE BEEN REGISTERED, GOVERMENT HAS EVENTUALLY CONFISCATED THE WEAPONS. Democracy is a delicate thing - and the political party you agree with may not be the party in power when the confiscation begins. I'd be a very unhappy German if I were a registered gun owner when Hitler came into power. "Good" done for "bad" motives has a way of spoiling on the shelf. Democracy is a delicate thing, and it considers all options (including communism, facism, religious rule, etc, IF they have enough votes). And there is a point at which voting rights can be surmounted, if the people IN power are the people WITH the power. This was one of the CONSIDERED REASONS (derived from the contemporary writings of the people who drafted the constitution) for the inclusion of the now-famous "right to bear arms". I wish I had the quote at my fingertips - but I think it was Adams - and the gist of it was that an armed populus was a good and sufficient deterrent to any petty tyrants with big ideas. NOT that we'd blow away the petty tyrant, but that the petty tyrant would have to have some kind of majority of his own behind him before he tried something, in which case he would be in power because of DEMOCRATIC CONSENT, not brute force. Constitutionality is an arguable issue as well - what was good and true 200 years ago may not bear on today. However, not much point in wrongly reinterpreting what was said 200 years ago as a poor argument for the issue today. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't think the constitution is broke on this issue. (PERSONAL OPINION, in case we forget) Everybody is interested in reducing crime, particularly armed and violent crime (surely I'm not going to be flamed for the use of "everybody" here). The actuality is that crooks are armed. Because of the constitutional issue, I do not believe in registering guns. If you want some social seal of approval for people who do have weapons (to keep them out of the "wrong hands") why not license the people, whether or not they own/carry a gun? Every upstanding citizen over 16 is licensed to carry, like driving a car. Whether they choose to do so or not is their own business. When you catch a crook with a weapon you jail him and (for first time offenders) revoke his license. Second time around, it's no agrument. He's using a weapon -> no license -> jail. And when confiscation time comes around, our petty tyrant doesn't know who owns what, but he knows that there are plenty of "right minded" americans out there who could be. I don't actually favor this approach either, but it makes more sense than registering "guns" in order to control "criminals" (read "apples" and "oranges"). Anyhow, that's one reason why people get excited about it. People get pretty excited about freedom of speech, too, and it has as many points of contradiction as this one. So who said democracy was easy?
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (Jerry Hollombe) (02/08/85)
>From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) >Subject: another twist on the gun issue >Message-ID: <220@ttidcc.UUCP> Adrienne, you disappoint me. Not only are your facts incorrect, but you had to shout your misinformation in caps. {sigh} I don't suppose you read the article I posted to net.politics earlier containing the known facts about the Constitution and the 2nd amendment? Probably everyone else has, so I won't repost for now. Come by my office and I'll show you the original. One other thing. Before I'm flamed by all and sundry, let me say it again: I AM NOT TAKING A POSITION ON GUN CONTROL IN THIS POSTING. Ahem ... >The real flap over gun control is that EVERY TIME WEAPONS HAVE BEEN >REGISTERED, GOVERMENT HAS EVENTUALLY CONFISCATED THE WEAPONS. ... Not true. As has been frequently mentioned in this argument, guns are registered in Great Britain, for example, and nobody's confiscated them yet. (I know you've heard that before. Slip your mind, did it?) > ... If you want some social seal >of approval for people who do have weapons (to keep them out of the "wrong >hands") why not license the people, whether or not they own/carry a gun? >Every upstanding citizen over 16 is licensed to carry, like driving a car. >Whether they choose to do so or not is their own business. When you catch >a crook with a weapon you jail him and (for first time offenders) revoke We don't do this with cars. In most states getting a driver's license requires passing a written and practical test. In California, you can't drive under the age of 18 unless you've passed a driver education course in school. The same is true in many other states and driver's ed. is frequently made a requirement for highschool graduation. Note that cars are generally classified as deadly weapons under the law. Just you try suggesting to an anti-gun-control type that they should have to take a test to get a license to own a gun (hint: wear your kevlar vest when you do). Besides, cars are registered in all states. If we're going to treat guns like cars ... what was that about apples and oranges? So far the gun-control debate has generated much heat and little light that I've noticed. I expect it will continue to do so as long as people want simplistic, black-or-white answers to complex problems. Again, please note: I HAVE NOT TAKEN A POSITION ON GUN CONTROL IN THIS POSTING. -- ============================================================================== The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI If thy CRT offend thee, pluck 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. it out and cast it from thee. Santa Monica, California 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {vortex,philabs}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/12/85)
> > REPRINTED FROM AN EARLIER BROADCAST: > > The real flap over gun control is that EVERY TIME WEAPONS HAVE BEEN > REGISTERED, GOVERMENT HAS EVENTUALLY CONFISCATED THE WEAPONS. Democracy is > a delicate thing - and the political party you agree with may not be the > party in power when the confiscation begins. I'd be a very unhappy German > if I were a registered gun owner when Hitler came into power. "Good" done > for "bad" motives has a way of spoiling on the shelf. > The basic premise of this article is simply wrong. England, Japan, and almost all developed countries in the "civilized" world have some form of gun control. Yet these countries also have a thriving democracy. The idea that one could seriously challenge a government with tanks and nuclear bombs by opposing that government with popguns is simply ludicrous. Governments can be changed despite these impediments when the people in the government itself no longer support it. tim sevener whuxl!orb
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (02/13/85)
In article <474@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >The idea that one could seriously challenge a government with tanks >and nuclear bombs by opposing that government with popguns is simply ludicrous. >Governments can be changed despite these impediments when the people >in the government itself no longer support it. > tim sevener whuxl!orb Nuclear bombs aren't very useful to quell a disturbance in your backyard. But I can see Ronnie saying to his Generals, "Well, we don't really need Cleavland..." -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
rjc@snow.UUCP (R.caley) (02/19/85)
> > REPRINTED FROM AN EARLIER BROADCAST: > > The real flap over gun control is that EVERY TIME WEAPONS HAVE BEEN > REGISTERED, GOVERMENT HAS EVENTUALLY CONFISCATED THE WEAPONS. Democracy is > a delicate thing - and the political party you agree with may not be the > party in power when the confiscation begins. I'd be a very unhappy German > if I were a registered gun owner when Hitler came into power. "Good" done > for "bad" motives has a way of spoiling on the shelf. > Guns are regulated over here and I know several people who own some.One guy even owns a couple of cannons!Nobody is trying to take his guns away :-) RJC -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In the beginning was a flame ...... " Paul Kantner. .......... mcvax!ukc!flame!ubu!snow!rjc [ Any opinions in the above crawled in while I wasn't looking ]
west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (02/28/85)
> REPRINTED FROM AN EARLIER BROADCAST: > > The real flap over gun control is that EVERY TIME WEAPONS HAVE BEEN > REGISTERED, GOVERMENT HAS EVENTUALLY CONFISCATED THE WEAPONS. And it would be about time! American gun control (or more specifically, lack thereof) account for a *large* proportion of the weapons used by Canadian criminals since guns are rather harder to get here (and most importantly, handguns are next to impossible to get (except by buying and smuggling from the States.)) The American gun control laws not only kill a good number of Americans, they also do in a number of Canadians. And we're intelligent enough to have gun control laws. This ain't justice. Tom West { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west