Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!notes
From: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: weapons and nukes. - (nf)
Message-ID: <374@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Oct-83 22:15:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.374
Posted: Fri Oct  7 22:15:45 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Oct-83 21:03:07 EDT
Sender: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group
Lines: 47

#R:tekecs:-18900:ucbesvax:2900024:000:2289
ucbesvax!turner    Oct  6 21:44:00 1983

	Stephen Samuel is starting up (or down) a slippery-slope argument:
take an extreme example, attempt to register a knee-jerk reaction, and
extrapolate from this reaction to the desired position.  Voila!  your
adversaries fall before you like grass wilting before the flame-thrower
(so to speak).

	It never works that way in real life.  I mean, here I am, something
of an advocate of some form of handgun control, and yet I find myself a
more than slightly turned off by his line of argument.

	Without the actual text of the bill of rights in front of me, I'll
have to make some guesses.  As I recall, the "right to keep and bear arms"
is phrased in the context of the security requirements of free states, which,
it is held, require a "well-regulated militia".  (Haven't we been through
this before?)

	This amendment is in the nature of a compromise: elsewhere in the
constitution, we have guarantees that troops not be "quartered" in the
civilian population (i.e., given free room and board from whatever unfortunate
community.)

	Given both the economic depression following the British embargo,
and the imminent British military threat (as shown by the War of 1812),
citizen's militias were a simple, cheap way to make good on the promise to
not quarter soldiers.  Clearly, however, these had to be regulated (i.e.,
subjected to some kind of military discipline) to be effective.

	There, I believe, is the problem: how many gun-owners do you know
who are active members of a well-regulated militia?  How many would submit
to periodic inspections of their guns, for signs of poor maintenance?  How
many would accept, as the price of their right to keep and bear arms, a
regimen of periodic military service?  Some, perhaps.  But not all.

	I see this amendment as a logical proposition in the form of
implication: "IF (the U.S. needs citizen militias to survive) THEN
(having no infringements on gun-ownership is a small price to pay)".
The statement is true, now, even though we do not need citizen militias.
Furthermore, infringements on gun-ownership of any kind do not render the
statement false, until such time as citizen militias are needed again.
Are there any other interpretations?  Try to be convincing, if you think
there are.
---
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)