andrew@tekecs.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (08/28/83)
"Nobody should be carrying a handgun without providing very
clear proof, to a competent authority, that he/she knows how to
use it and has an absolute need to carry it."
To me, one of the most scary developments of this century is the
proliferation of laws seeking to abridge and deny our clearly stated
Constitutional rights, and the increasing tendency of jurists to ignore
that Supreme Law of the Land and rule in favor of popular opinion.
The government is ignoring its own laws, with the support of the
populace. This way lies chaos.
Note to anti-handgun flamers: just for the hell of it, read through the
Bill of Rights. [It won't take more than a few minutes.] Then tell me
by what authority you seek to disarm me.
-- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew) [UUCP]
(andrew.tektronix@rand-relay) [ARPA]laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (08/29/83)
Look folk, the problem isn't with handguns, or cars, or you name it. The problem is with people. People who dive cars should be responsible enough to know how to drive, and not drive while drunk. people who have guns shouldn't leave them lying around where 2-year-olds can shoot people with them. Nobody should be going on shooting sprees in football stadiums. In practice, there are a lot of irresponsible people out there. And there is a large segment of the population that think that banning 'X' is a good idea to keep those irresponsible folk in line. THIS DOESN"T WORK. In no way have you taught them to be responsible. When you get to the case of automobiles (a necessity in some parts of the world) you get a dangerous device that should only be operated by responsible individuals -- but then we haven't spent the effort into making citizens into responsible individuals, have we? We have just banned things that irresponsible people could hurt others with -- so you get all those irresponsible people who cannot have their cars taken away from them because they need cars. Now, THEY'RE dangerous. Since we are going to have to teach responsibility anyway, or lose more people due to automobile accidents (one example) why not give up this "well, you can just ban things" mentality and get down to the real problem? laura creighton (I don't own a gun, and don't want one) utzoo!utcsstat!laura
larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (08/29/83)
From Andrew Klossner (andrew@tekecs):
Note to anti-handgun flamers: just for the hell of it, read through the
Bill of Rights. [It won't take more than a few minutes.] Then tell me
by what authority you seek to disarm me.
~~~~~~~~~~~
By the authority of the Supreme Court, which has ruled that the second
amendment to the constitution guarantees the right of the states to
form militias (National Guard), nothing more, nothing less. I really
wish people would stop propogating the lie of consitutional guarantees
to own whatever type of armament you wish. It's simply false.
--
Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
{linus decvax}!genrad!grkermit!larry (until Sept. 8)
(ARPA) lkk@mit-mc (after sept. 1)fran@cbscc.UUCP (08/30/83)
OK, read the bill of rights. We have the right to bear arms That doesn't, according to my last course in constitutional law, mean that harvey smedlap can carry a 45. It means that the state of Minnesota can have an armed militia for internal peacekeeping. The right to bear arms is reserved to the states, not to the people. The unruffled sage Frank Webb <cbscc!fran>
wapd@houxj.UUCP (08/30/83)
Yes, it is the sick individual who causes the problem, not the inanimate object. However, possession of the inanimate object makes it a thousand times easier for the sicko to inflict his sickness on others. So should the sicko be allowed to have his sickness-magnifier ? Bill Dietrich houxj!wapd
done@teklabs.UUCP (08/31/83)
Well then HOW DO WE CURE THE DISEASE??????
wapd@houxj.UUCP (08/31/83)
Yes, a lot of things can be dangerous (cars, handguns). However, I see a difference between something with no utility other than to kill people (handguns) and something primarily used for beneficial purposes (cars). We certainly shouldn't get rid of everything that can possibly cause harm, but I believe we should get rid of things that have no function other than to cause harm (handguns). Bill Dietrich houxj!wapd
hennessy@nmtvax.UUCP (09/01/83)
"A well regulated militia, being essential to the well being of a state, the right to bear arms shall not be abridged." Well that's what it says. If you are in your state militia fine. If not then this does not apply to you. Why don't YOU read the constitution before bitching about your rights. Sincerely; Greg Hennessy; ..ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!hennessy ..ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!student P.S. Flames use second path. My account is being changed.
eager@amd70.UUCP (Mike Eager) (09/02/83)
I might add that one of the scariest developments of the past hundred years is the development of the handgun. Laws to regulate (not abridge) usually follow the development of a new item. Handguns were built by hand and were expensive in the 1850's. They are now cheap and machine made. The constitution doesn't mention handguns anywhere. It also doesn't mention airplanes, television, cars, and a host of other regulated items. The writers of the constituion left to the congress the right to regulate any number of area, handguns is one of them. A question: Presumably the person who does not want gun control laws because they will "disarm" him is also against drivers licenses because they will abridge his "right" to vehicular homicide?
davidl@tekid.UUCP (David Levadie) (09/02/83)
Why should the rest of us be restricted at all, in any way, just because a hypothetical "sicko"'s lack of self-control?
dps@omsvax.UUCP (09/08/83)
England has handgun control. London has fewer murders than any American city of comparable size or density. I don't have the figures to hand, but as I recall the difference is an order of magnitude. British authorities have no doubt that there is a relation. Also, some Canadian cities (perhaps the whole country) also have handgun control. The Canadian city/cities in the Great Lakes metropolitan area have fewer murders than the American cities. Could there be a relation? Most deaths from handguns are not caused by professional criminals, but by people with an emotional involvement with their victims. Having a handgun readily available makes crimes of passion easy. In dealing with a housebreaker, a home owner with a gun has a choice: 1) He can challenge the housebreaker, giving the hb'er time to fire his own gun, or 2) He can shoot first and ask question later. If he chooses 2), he should have a lawyer noted for proving "that it was in self defense" -- hard to argue when the hb'er didn't even see the shooter. I, for one, would feel a lot safer if the only handguns around were in the hands of professional criminals. I figure the chances of not getting shot would improve by several orders of magnitude. I also don't believe that political freedom and democracy require handguns. After all, the Athenians didn't have handguns.
billp@bronze.UUCP (Bill Pfeifer) (09/09/83)
>> I, for one, would feel a lot safer if the only handguns around were >> in the hands of professional criminals. >> >> omsvax!dps Wow! There's not even a ":-)" after that statement! (Actually, from the context it is obvious that this person really means it) Bill Pfeifer {decvax,ucbvax,zehntel,uw-beaver} !tektronix!tekmdp!billp
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/11/83)
=================== >> I, for one, would feel a lot safer if the only handguns around were >> in the hands of professional criminals. >> >> omsvax!dps Wow! There's not even a ":-)" after that statement! (Actually, from the context it is obvious that this person really means it) Bill Pfeifer =================== If you think about it for a few seconds or longer, you will see that it is probably true. If the criminal is pretty sure you aren't going to kill him with a gun, he is unlikely to use it as his first method of defence. If he kills you, it will be from malice, not from fear. Not only would all the shootings in murders of passion be eliminated, but also so would most of those in the course of a crime. I, too, would feel a lot safer if the only handguns outside of the police and the armed forces were those owned ILLEGALLY by criminals. Martin Taylor