Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!bwm
From: bwm@ccieng5.UUCP ( Morgoth	Lord of Darkness)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: gun control and the government
Message-ID: <141@ccieng5.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Sep-83 07:25:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccieng5.141
Posted: Wed Sep 14 07:25:44 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Sep-83 19:27:06 EDT
Lines: 39

Hmm, I don't have a textbook in front of me, but don't I recall one of the
first few amendments to the constitution saying something of the order of
'the right of a citizen to bear arms shall not be infringed'?

That seems to imply to me that ALL gun control laws are unconstitutional.
It even seems to say that prisoners don't have to surrender their weapons
to police. (I'm not sure I like that one, but that's what it says). In
other words there are no ifs no ands and no buts. Why? The line comes in
the amendment providing for a militia. Why do the people of the US need
a militia, when we have such a wonderful set of US Armed forces? I think
it's because the drafters of the constitution believed many things. One
of them was that it was the DUTY of a citizen to correct his government if
he believed it to be wrong - even to the extent of taking up arms against
it (see Declaration of Independance). The Constitution provides the means
for the government to get out of hand. It also provides a means for the
citizenry to forcibly fix it.

Case in point: There exists a certain administrative body which has been
'empowered' (I believe unconstitutionally so) with certain priviliges,
like ignoring the 'innocent until proven guilty' part of the constitution.
I won't name any names (but their initials are IRS). Lucky for all of us,
they can only go so far, before they will outrage the citizenry enough for
a full-blown tax revolt. We have not reached that point - yet. It may
happen in our lifetimes, however, unless politicians stop worrying about
votes and suddenly become ethical (i.e. worrying about the COUNTRY instead
of their constituency, or the desires of those wonderful folks who made
large undertable campaign contributions). <<Ah, yes, the joy of flaming>>

This does not imply that everyone should go around carrying a gun. It would
probably mean a large step backward in the public safety sector. It does imply
that it is ALLOWABLE for people to do this, and certainly most people should at
least OWN a gun. NOT registered!! The FIRST thing a communist takeover does
to the citizenry is confiscate the guns (sagely enough). Registering your
weapon only makes it possible for the 'powers that be' to eventually confiscate
it, if and when they feel like it. This was why the framers of the constitution
put in the amendment (I think), and should that amendment ever fall, this
country will no longer be free. (It barely is now).

--Morgoth       rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng2!bwm