Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Handguns: we're succumbing to mob ru - (nf)
Message-ID: <302@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Sep-83 05:46:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.302
Posted: Tue Sep  6 05:46:46 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 7-Sep-83 01:18:46 EDT
Lines: 28

#R:tekecs:-195400:inmet:4000015:000:1507
inmet!nrh    Sep  6 00:29:00 1983

***** inmet:net.followup / amd70!eager /  9:39 pm  Sep  1, 1983
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.
[ Indeed.  That sure changed things.  I suppose the morality changes
  when something is available to the poor also.]

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.
[ As I recall, the ninth amendment states that the absence of mention of
  some right shall not be construed to mean that that right does not exist --
  can somebody please supply the exact wording?]

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?
[ Wonderful comparison.  I don't think the two cases compare in just the
  way you've put it -- Nobody has the "right" to hurt somebody else with
  a car OR a gun.  Certainly a Government prefers unarmed citizens because
  armed tax collectors, press gangs, and police are safer.  That
  something increases the ease of government doesn't mean that 
  it is a good thing.]