Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mit-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!mit-vax!csdf
From: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: rape and firearms and death
Message-ID: <447@mit-vax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 10:51:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-vax.447
Posted: Tue Jul 23 10:51:55 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 23:38:47 EDT
References: <191@cuuxa.UUCP> <2919@sdcc3.UUCP> <2301@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe)
Distribution: net
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 24

In article <875@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes:
>> in the "United" states of amerika.
>>			     ^^^^^^^ 
>> 				Sunny

>I don't have a copy of the Constitution in front of me, but isn't that
>"right" specifically granted for maintaining a militia?  I think there
>is some difference between that and an individual's right to bear arms.

That was the original idea. The founding fathers decided that if the
citizens were armed, then they could defend the country (as in the
revolution) and we wouldn't need a standing army. Well, it didn't work
that way and now citizens need firearms to protect themselves from other
citizens with firearms. The Fifth Amendmant (right to bear arms) has
been veiwed as a big mistake by many gun-control supporting historians.
This is what I learned in history, but I've never read AMERIKAN history.

Anyway, this should move to net.politics.

-- 
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"I always try to avoid cliche's like the plague!"
        -Rev. Wang Zeep