lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (07/17/85)
> In article <200@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) writes: > >> > >> > 2) Someone who has not given thought to the "wild-west theory" > >> > of social relationships. > >ie > >If - Everyone wore a gun on their hip > > THEN - people would be more polite in general. > > > >(This doesn't and can't work for obvious reasons but I have heard it > > What are these "obvious" reasons? Before you flame right back, let me > point you to an article that appeared on the front page of the Wall > Street Journal some years ago, before the Russian invasion of > Afghanistan. It was a background, travelogue-style piece on Afghanistan, > which at that time was seldom mentioned in world news and was considered > exotic and unknown. > > This article explicitly and specifically stated that Afghan society was > more polite in interpersonal relations, and that petty crime was > practically unknown, due *precisely* to the Afghan habit of ALWAYS going > armed, no matter where you went. This is exactly the "wild west theory" > stated above, and I think this one reference is all that is needed to > prove that it is correct! I wish to hell people would stop encouraging gun toting. There is already so much shooting in my neighborhood that the thought of EVERYONE being armed is devastating. I think if everyone carried a gun in NYC, or any major city, all it would generate is an increase in the standard of living of funeral directors. -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto Public Health Research Institute, 455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016 (allegra!phri!lonetto) "BUY ART, NOT COCAINE"
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (07/18/85)
> I wish to hell people would stop encouraging gun toting. There is already > so much shooting in my neighborhood that the thought of EVERYONE being > armed is devastating. I think if everyone carried a gun in NYC, or any > major city, all it would generate is an increase in the standard of living > of funeral directors. Or a decrease in the standard of living of muggers and burglers. > > Michael Lonetto Public Health Research Institute, > 455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016 > (allegra!phri!lonetto) > > "BUY ART, NOT COCAINE" I tend to agree that things get a little insane in the city, but there is plenty of reason to keep a rifle rack in your pickup when you live in the country. Please keep your mind open and realize that what works for you in your environment is not necessarily the optimal solution for others in their environments. It's time to recognize our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (including the right to bear arms, which cannot constitutionally be infringed upon by the Feds, the State, the County, nor the City), and stop trying to shove your preferred lifestyle down the throats of everyone in the "United" states of amerika. Personal Responsibility is the answer, not more governmental regulation. Sunny p.s., I know cocaine isn't the answer to anything (except: q: "what *used* to be in 'classic' coca cola") but I'm not so sure that art is the universal answer either, nor necessarily appropriate to this forum nor discussion (though it does meet the requirement for a "cute" signoff). -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (07/20/85)
In article <329@phri.UUCP>, lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) writes: > I wish to hell people would stop encouraging gun toting. There is already > so much shooting in my neighborhood that the thought of EVERYONE being > armed is devastating. I think if everyone carried a gun in NYC, or any > major city, all it would generate is an increase in the standard of living > of funeral directors. > > Michael Lonetto Well, that's gratitude for you! There you are, protected by the finest gun control laws in the country, and still complaining! :-)-- "Quid me anxius sum?" -- E. Alfredus Numanus Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) (07/20/85)
> > I wish to hell people would stop encouraging gun toting. There is already > > so much shooting in my neighborhood that the thought of EVERYONE being > > armed is devastating. I think if everyone carried a gun in NYC, or any > > major city, all it would generate is an increase in the standard of living > > of funeral directors. To which Sunney Kristen responds: > > Or a decrease in the standard of living of muggers and burglers. . . . > > I tend to agree that things get a little insane in the city, but there is > plenty of reason to keep a rifle rack in your pickup when you live in the > country. Please keep your mind open and realize that what works for you > in your environment is not necessarily the optimal solution for others in > their environments. It's time to recognize our constitutionally guaranteed > freedoms (including the right to bear arms, which cannot constitutionally > be infringed upon by the Feds, the State, the County, nor the City), and > stop trying to shove your preferred lifestyle down the throats of everyone > in the "United" states of amerika. > > Personal Responsibility is the answer, not more governmental regulation. > > Sunny > > -- > {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) Good lord...give me a break... ...it's times like these, I wish I was reading a good book. -- --- Rob DeMillo Madison Academic Computer Center ...seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo / =|-- = \ = [][][] "...I don't know what this thing does, but it's pointing in your direction."
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (07/20/85)
> their environments. It's time to recognize our constitutionally guaranteed > freedoms (including the right to bear arms, which cannot constitutionally > be infringed upon by the Feds, the State, the County, nor the City), and > stop trying to shove your preferred lifestyle down the throats of everyone > in the "United" states of amerika. > > > Sunny It so happens that carrying a conceiled weapon within the New York City limits is illegal. Carrying a weapon in public without conceiling it is no longer considered stylish :-) > > Michael Lonetto Public Health Research Institute, > > 455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016 > > (allegra!phri!lonetto) > > > > "BUY ART, NOT COCAINE" > > p.s., I know cocaine isn't the answer to anything > (except: q: "what *used* to be in 'classic' coca cola") > but I'm not so sure that art is the universal answer either, > nor necessarily appropriate to this forum nor discussion > (though it does meet the requirement for a "cute" signoff). The East Village is populated with artists, art galleries, "homesteaders", very old polish jews, lesbians, transvestites, poor people of all description and many, many cocaine dealers. The signoff is a common graphito on the streets. -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto Public Health Research Institute, 455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016 (allegra!phri!lonetto) "BUY ART, NOT COCAINE"
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (07/22/85)
> their environments. It's time to recognize our constitutionally guaranteed > freedoms (including the right to bear arms, which cannot constitutionally > be infringed upon by the Feds, the State, the County, nor the City), and > stop trying to shove your preferred lifestyle down the throats of everyone > in the "United" states of amerika. > > Sunny I don't have a copy of the Constitution in front of me, but isn't that "right" specifically granted for maintaining a militia? I think there is some difference between that and an individual's right to bear arms. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/23/85)
In article <875@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: >> in the "United" states of amerika. >> ^^^^^^^ >> Sunny >I don't have a copy of the Constitution in front of me, but isn't that >"right" specifically granted for maintaining a militia? I think there >is some difference between that and an individual's right to bear arms. That was the original idea. The founding fathers decided that if the citizens were armed, then they could defend the country (as in the revolution) and we wouldn't need a standing army. Well, it didn't work that way and now citizens need firearms to protect themselves from other citizens with firearms. The Fifth Amendmant (right to bear arms) has been veiwed as a big mistake by many gun-control supporting historians. This is what I learned in history, but I've never read AMERIKAN history. Anyway, this should move to net.politics. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "I always try to avoid cliche's like the plague!" -Rev. Wang Zeep
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (07/23/85)
> > It's time to recognize our constitutionally guaranteed > > freedoms (including the right to bear arms, which cannot constitutionally > > be infringed upon by the Feds, the State, the County, nor the City) > > Sunny > > It so happens that carrying a conceiled weapon within the New York City limits > is illegal. Carrying a weapon in public without conceiling it is no longer > considered stylish :-) You missed the point... the New York "Law" is illegal... that is, it is invalid because it is counter to the constitution of the United States of America, which it may not supersede. Either that or the U.S. Constitution has been suspended and none of us are under constitutional law, i.e. that in governmental actions of 1913 or 1933 we all were placed under Admiralty Jurisdiction by the Declaration of State of Emergency which has existed ever since. We weren't talking style, we're talking seriously about defending women from violent attack. -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (07/24/85)
> > their environments. It's time to recognize our constitutionally guaranteed > > freedoms (including the right to bear arms, which cannot constitutionally > > be infringed upon by the Feds, the State, the County, nor the City), and > > stop trying to shove your preferred lifestyle down the throats of everyone > > in the "United" states of amerika. > > > > Sunny > > I don't have a copy of the Constitution in front of me, but isn't that > "right" specifically granted for maintaining a militia? I think there > is some difference between that and an individual's right to bear arms. > The founders believed the people should be the militia, not hired mercenaries (sometimes called an army). -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (07/24/85)
In article <875@ccice5.UUCP>, rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: > I don't have a copy of the Constitution in front of me, but isn't that > "right" specifically granted for maintaining a militia? I think there > is some difference between that and an individual's right to bear arms. The meaning of the word "militia" has shifted since the 1780's. Then, it meant the muster of every able-bodied man able to bear arms. Now, it means "National Guard." The Founding Fathers would have considered the National Guard to be somewhere between a "select militia" and a "standing army" -- not the same thing at all. The period following the revolutionary war was characterized by an intense distrust of organized military force. The main fear was that the Federal Government would gain power and become a tyranny, and the main defense against that was an armed citizenry. If you think that's far-fetched, look at what happened to France after the Revolution. Napoleon's takeover was *EXACTLY* the kind of thing people were worried about. (Okay, I know this isn't really relevant to net.women, but the question of arms keeps coming up. As far as the *INTENT* of the Founding Fathers goes, everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.) -- "Quid me anxius sum?" -- E. Alfredus Numanus Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (07/24/85)
In article <875@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: >> [remarks about constitutional right to bear arms] >> >> Sunny > >I don't have a copy of the Constitution in front of me, but isn't that >"right" specifically granted for maintaining a militia? I think there >is some difference between that and an individual's right to bear arms. Omigod! Not again! Would you please move this to mod.guns or whatever it's called? Net.women certainly doesn't need yet another rehashing of gun control. -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
slerner@sesame.UUCP (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner) (07/25/85)
> > > I wish to hell people would stop encouraging gun toting. There is already > > > so much shooting in my neighborhood that the thought of EVERYONE being > > > armed is devastating. I think if everyone carried a gun in NYC, or any > > > major city, all it would generate is an increase in the standard of living > > > of funeral directors. Unless you agree with the likes of Robert Heinlen. He theorizes that a society that goes about armed, and is ready to use these arms to "right wrongs", rapidly becomes a VERY polite society. (Anyone who can't learn to be polite and insistes on being a pain in the butt is rapidly eliminated.) He further argues that the use of arms is self-limiting, that a person would not shoot someone knowing that everyone will come gunning for HIM unless he had a VERY good reason for shooting the victim that everyone would aggree with. I am not advocating universal armament, but I don't want anyone telling me that I can't defent myself. (I suffered through 9 muggings in 3 years in NYC before I got out. I was never hurt seriously, and I put the mugger in the hospital every time. Laws won't stop the criminal element from getting guns. I demand the ability to defend myself with similar arms.) Remember, victims have rights too. -- Opinions expressed are public domain, and do not belong to Lotus Development Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner {genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!slerner {cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!slerner slerner%sesame@harvard.ARPA
crs@lanl.ARPA (07/25/85)
> > their environments. It's time to recognize our constitutionally guaranteed > > freedoms (including the right to bear arms, which cannot constitutionally > > be infringed upon by the Feds, the State, the County, nor the City), and > > stop trying to shove your preferred lifestyle down the throats of everyone > > in the "United" states of amerika. > > > > Sunny > > I don't have a copy of the Constitution in front of me, but isn't that > "right" specifically granted for maintaining a militia? I think there > is some difference between that and an individual's right to bear arms. > While the importance of maintaining a militia is mentioned, the actual guarantee is "...the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." [emphasis added] I am particularly sensitive to the interpretation that you suggested because it is a stratagem often used by those who would weaken or eliminate this constitutionally guaranteed rght of the *people*. [I'm not saying that is your intent but there are those with that intention.] I find it difficult to believe that those who wrote our constitution would have explicitly used the word *people* unless that is exactly what they meant. Before you decide in your own mindd if they meant people or only the organized militia, think a bit about what they had just gone through. The new nation to be had just won independence from an oppressive (or so we are told) ruler. It was fresh in their minds, as they wrote the constitution, that had private citiizens not had firearms the war of independence would likely have had a far different outcome. I'm sure the king of England, to say nothing of the British army would have loved to have had in effect the suggestion that only the police and the military be allowed to own & carry guns. While I would like to carry on this discussion (and I don't read net.legal or net.politics) I suspect that it is about to wear out its welcome in net.women. *I* have not objection to its continuance here but others may. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
gnome@olivee.UUCP (Gary Traveis) (07/29/85)
> In article <875@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: > >> [remarks about constitutional right to bear arms] > >> Sunny > > > >I don't have a copy of the Constitution in front of me, but isn't that > >"right" specifically granted for maintaining a militia? I think there > >is some difference between that and an individual's right to bear arms. > > Omigod! Not again! Would you please move this to mod.guns or whatever > it's called? Net.women certainly doesn't need yet another rehashing of gun > control. > I agree! Get this gun stuff out of net.women! BUT don't even think about mod.firearms -- it's not supposed to go there either... Stick it all in net.flames or /dev/null because net.women is getting to be the most garbage-filled group on the net!
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (07/31/85)
Please note that I have specified that follow-ups shall go to net.politics. In article <> crs@lanl.ARPA writes: > While the importance of maintaining a militia is mentioned, the actual > guarantee is "...the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall > not be infringed." [emphasis added] > ... > I find it difficult to believe that those who wrote our constitution > would have explicitly used the word *people* unless that is exactly > what they meant. The phrase "the people" generally refers to a collective entity, as in "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union..." Hence the use of the word "people" is not evidence that the authors of the 2nd Amendment had in mind individual gun ownership for use as individuals. Also, the phrase "to bear arms" means, and has always meant, to serve in an organized military force, rather than merely to carry a weapon. Thus the "right of the people to bear arms" is the right of the citizenry to form an armed militia. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, as I understand it, is to guarantee the states the right to raise and arm militias. On the "individual right" interpretation it is hard to explain why "a well-regulated militia" is mentioned. The oppression of George III was indeed, as you say, fresh in the minds of the new nation's citizens; they were also doubtless well aware that armed but unorganized individuals would have been completely ineffective in resisting the British army. If you fear a potentially repressive government (as I do), you should be aware that unorganized individuals armed with handguns would not provide any resistance at all to the US or Red Armies or the like. Every federal court decision bearing on the 2nd Amendment (including five of the Supreme Court) has given the Amendment a collective interpretation. If you wish to disagree, please familiarize yourself with the reasoning of the courts so that we will not have to go over this well-trodden ground once again. > I'm sure the king of England, to say nothing of > the British army would have loved to have had in effect the suggestion > that only the police and the military be allowed to own & carry guns. This suggestion is a product of your imagination. Militias, which the 2nd amendment allows the people (through the states) to form and arm, are distinct from the police and the military, and in any case no one has ever proposed that guns be restricted to the police and military. I'm sorry if I annoyed anyone by posting this in net.women, but it's an interesting topic and I hope someone will follow up in net.politics. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
pauly@zaphod.UUCP (Paul Yeager) (08/01/85)
In article <2475@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) writes: >> > It's time to recognize our constitutionally guaranteed >> > freedoms (including the right to bear arms, which cannot constitutionally >> > be infringed upon by the Feds, the State, the County, nor the City) >> > Sunny >> >> It so happens that carrying a conceiled weapon within the New York City limits >> is illegal. Carrying a weapon in public without conceiling it is no longer >> considered stylish :-) > >You missed the point... the New York "Law" is illegal... that is, it is >invalid because it is counter to the constitution of the United States >of America, which it may not supersede. Either that or the U.S. >Constitution has been suspended and none of us are under constitutional >law, i.e. that in governmental actions of 1913 or 1933 we all were >placed under Admiralty Jurisdiction by the Declaration of State of >Emergency which has existed ever since. > >We weren't talking style, we're talking seriously about defending women from >violent attack. > You're mixing two separte issues here - 1 - The constitutional right to bear arms in self defense 2 - The (perceived by some) right to carry a concealed weapon In most states, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon (guns, knives etc.). For those whose situation merits it, in most states a permit may be obtained to carry a concealed handgun.(albeit at quite a price). It would be nice if we could insure that only those with permits actually did carry concealed handguns. If we changed the law so anyone could do it, how many ex-cons and probationers do you think would carry a piece that now would not consider it, as it almost guarantees a trip back to the big house. Furthermore, I presume your interest is self-protection and not a desire to kill someone for having violated (or looked like they might violate) your right to go about your life unmolested. If my above presumtion is correct, I suggest to you the best protection might result from carrying a gun in open view. If some sick person spots you toting a 357 magnum, they are most likely to look for other prey. Before I get mercilessly flamed for the above, let me state that I realize there are a multitude of consequences of having lots of people toting sidearms. Society must somehow insure that people who carry a gun are well trained in it's use, aware of the consequences of it's use, and are not going start gunfights over a parking place ( it's happened in my hometown, Miami). A tall order for certain, but maybe less tall than solving the psychological problems of rapists, muggers, and robbers everywhere. Paul Yeager (Miamian surviving in Saskatoon) {the known universe}!ihnp4!alberta!sask!zaphod!pauly no problems, just challenges.