regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (02/08/85)
Jerry, I use caps for emphasis, not shouting. I take to heart your advice to use _underlines_ instead. I mean licensing people to carry guns, like licensing people to drive which is not the same thing as licensing weapons and licensing cars. One is confering the right, the other is tracing the object. Obviously not clear in my contribution to the net. And, since it isn't an argument that I support, I am not interested in the details of implementation. I just felt that conferring the right (relatively across the board, as the 2nd amendment intended) made more sense to me in terms of apprehending people who-shouldn't-be-carrying-weapons-but-are (the kind of people the attorneys are really after, according to my attorney friends, through this kind of legislation) and has a more negligible impact on people who-shouldn't- be-hasselled-about-guns-one-way-or-another. Again, the implementation isn't of interest to me, cause I don't think it's broke. And you are quite right that, given the Brits peculiarly advanced civilization, guns haven't been confiscated in Britain - yet. The question to consider is what would happen if Britain became a sattelite of, say, Northern Ireland, and every weapon was listed? But, yes, it does contradict my argument. I should have included a span of time when I said HISTORICALLY. No, strike that -- the question to be considered _really_ is, what would you think about repealing an article from the Bill of Rights? Are you comfortable with that precident, given what you know about how the courts work? Would we next infringe the freedoms of speech (in "necessary" ways, of course, says our benevolent government)? Is is paranoia to be concerned with the preservation of the freedoms that a lot of people spent a lot of their lives preserving that now a lot of other people are trying to rescind? Do you really trust these other people to know what is right? Do you put your life and your freedoms in their hands? Sure, that's what democracy is, but that's also what the Bill of Rights is for -- to keep your neigh- bor out of your opinions.
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (Jerry Hollombe) (02/08/85)
I expect this to be my last contribution to a debate I consider to be a futile waste of time. Still without taking a position .... >From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) >Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame >Subject: adendum >Message-ID: <224@ttidcc.UUCP> > >Jerry, I use caps for emphasis, not shouting. I take to heart your >advice to use _underlines_ instead. Didn't mean to jump on that. I should make more allowance for new people. Sorry. >I mean licensing people to carry guns, like licensing people to drive >which is not the same thing as licensing weapons and licensing cars. One >is confering the right, the other is tracing the object. ... I believe I responded correctly to your previous posting. Your suggestion seemed to be to license everyone over 16 to carry a gun and revoke the license when they commit a crime (a concept that, frankly, scares me spitless). I pointed out that driver's licenses don't work this way, and for obvious good reasons. I didn't mention licensing guns except as a logical extension of the driver's license argument. > ... And, since it isn't an argument >that I support, I am not interested in the details of implementation. Making a point with an argument you don't support? You really should run for office. (-: > ... The question >to consider is what would happen if Britain became a sattelite of, say, >Northern Ireland, and every weapon was listed? There was supposed to be a (-: around here somewhere, right? You just forgot, right? (Suppose the United States became a satellite of Mexico. Suppose the moon fell down and hit the Earth ...) >No, strike that -- the question to be considered _really_ is, what would >you think about repealing an article from the Bill of Rights? ... I haven't seen anyone propose repealing the 2nd amendment here. The fact is that the "right to keep and bear arms" is _already_ infringed by both state and federal governments. The _only_ valid points for debate are whether and how much the present infringement should be increased or decreased. And that's the last I have to say on the subject. -- ============================================================================== 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