Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekig.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekig!erice
From: erice@tekig.UUCP (Eric Etheridge)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: gun control, seatbelt laws, drunk driving, etc.
Message-ID: <2465@tekig.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 00:03:51 EST
Article-I.D.: tekig.2465
Posted: Tue Jan 22 00:03:51 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jan-85 07:16:29 EST
References: <2974@allegra.UUCP> <1912@sun.uucp> <297@desint.UUCP> <1931@sun.uucp> <318@ll1.UUCP> <42@osu-eddie.UUCP> <226@tilt.FUN>
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 18

All of these subjects of regulation fall under the category of things our
friendly government attempts to protect the individual from hurting himself
with.  Or is that our friendly majority?  This once again brings to mind
the question of what the basis for regulating MY behavior on the basis of
what anyone else has ever done is?

Instead of creating forbidden fruit, the government would probably be better
off sticking to outlawing the simple things like murder and property damage.
Driving drunk wouldn't be illegal, but running over seven year old Kelly in
a 25 mile an hour zone while doing 70 would be cause for capital punishment.

How come nobody ever mentions that guns can be used to protect people from
the arbitrary actions of the government and that any self-respecting government
would do anything in its power to insure its permanence?  I always thought
that those guys stuck that in the constitution because of their recent
memories of the ways of the British government.

Yes?