Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!eagle!allegra!alan
From: alan@allegra.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: gun control and the guv
Message-ID: <1841@allegra.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Sep-83 08:25:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: allegra.1841
Posted: Sat Sep 24 08:25:07 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Sep-83 09:25:16 EDT
References: <149@ccieng5.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 22


	Alan, and all you others who have written on this point:

	I did not say I was in favor of criminals having guns (I even pointed
	out in the article I didn't like the idea). I simply noted that
	constituionally we did not have the right to take them away. There
	is no language in the constitution revoking the citizenship of criminals.
	If there were, all guarentees (see previous article) on the right of the
	lack of cruel and unusual punishment, etc. would be voided.

	Morgoth


Morgoth, you have taken one statement, out of context, and told us how you
would interpret it.  Now, why don't you look at it in context and try to
understand what the authors' intent was, and how it has been interpreted
for the last 200 years.  I think you'll find that your interpretation was
extreme, and historically unjustified.


	Alan Driscoll
	Bell Labs, Murray Hill