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!decvax!tektronix!zehntel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: personal defense
Message-ID: <406@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-May-85 16:48:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.406
Posted: Thu May  9 16:48:56 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 03:35:34 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 40


>> Limits placed on the private ownership of guns is incompatible
>> with the direct "concerns of the founding fathers".

>   I think this statement raises an important question. To what
>extent is it desirable to guide the conduct of a society accord-
>ing to principles laid down two centuries ago?

Very good question.  Does not invalidate the constitutional questions,
of course, because someone somewhere has to determine: if (a) is better
for us, is it worth it to change (b)? because of the legal ramifications,
but certainly a point worth considering.

VE day was only 40 years ago.  The Nazis thought the were the chosen
people.  How many civilizations in this world today are above that
egoism?  The U.S.?  I doubt it.

At least the consideration that everyone may be armed requires the intelligent
person to consider the responsiblities and necessities of being armed.  If
we were unarmable, the question might not come up, which might equate to a
nation of sheep.

I've a certain amount of faith that one day we will have grown beyond
weapons to the point where handguns will be as quaint a prospect as cross-
bows.  Still, one is wise to keep crossbows available if one is likely to
be attacked with crossbows.

Given that we will outgrow our need for handguns (my proposition), I'd
rather not set the precedent of altering the constitution, since that
precedent can be called up in any other context.

For those of you out there who think the NRA is a nasty, grossly wealthy
organization, consider what a nasty, grossly wealthy organization the United
Press might become if freedom of the press were threatened.  NRA is strong
and wealthy because a lot of people support their second amendment freedoms
and put their money where their principles are.  We all have principles that
we would stand up for, don't we?  It's no more filthy, corrupt or manipulative
than any other large organization striving for certain concepts of legality
and freedom.  Course, it's not cleaner, less corrupt or non-manipulative,
either.  That's what organizations are like *sigh*.