Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Personal Defense
Message-ID: <384@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Apr-85 17:57:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.384
Posted: Mon Apr 29 17:57:58 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Apr-85 02:26:52 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 47


>In article <> robertsb@ttidcb.UUCP (Robin Roberts) writes:
>>First the states in the US which enact tyrannical
>>unconstitutional gun control laws blame neighboring states for the fact
>>that the criminals still have guns, now Canadian citizens blame the US for
>>the fact that their criminals still have weapons.
>
>DON'T GIVE ME THIS "unconstitutional" CRAP!
>
>Crap is what it is.  It's not bad enough that Roberts can't put together a
>sentence without violating laws of grammar and punctuation--he also fails
>as an expert on constitutional law.
>
>Gun control is NOT unconstitutional.  It never has been.  FIVE SEPARATE
>times the U.  S.  Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment applies
>only to civilian militias.  This interpretation is backed both by English
>common law, and the concerns of the founding fathers.
>
>Gun control is a legitimate attempt at solving a difficult problem--the
>handgun war that kills 11,000 people annually in the US.  Now, you may
>disagree with this attempt...
>
>but DON'T CALL IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL unless you want to look like a fool.

Or, unless you want to be closer to the truth.  The interpretation of the
"concerns of the founding fathers" is not reflected in the establishment
of a National Guard, or whatever else you are using as == militia.
According to the writings of the "founding fathers" approximately contem-
porary to the period, militia meant an armed populice, as in citizenry,
as in real people in their little houses, not established governmentally
organized bodies of armed personnel.

Limits placed on the private ownership of guns is incompatible with the
direct "concerns of the founding fathers".  Whether this is unconstitutional
in ANY interpretation (or sophistic misinterpretation) causes the courts
much wrangle.  But it certainly isn't INCORRECT to state that it is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL in that it is opposed to the original intent of the
writers of the constitution.

I see I'm just going to have to dig up the citations on this, lost in old
filing boxes tho they may be.  Expect it after finals, folks.

See, I don't write out words completely, or punctuate with respect to
complete sentances, either.  You are free to comment upon this.  What nasty
small people we can all be at times.

				  Adrienne Regard