Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!jwl From: jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.flame Subject: Re: Replying to Gun Nuts Propaganda (was COMPUTER USER...) Message-ID: <21230@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Sat, 10-Oct-87 03:50:16 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.21230 Posted: Sat Oct 10 03:50:16 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Oct-87 01:07:58 EDT References: <7428@reed.UUCP> <21198@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <826@pbhyc.UUCP> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) Distribution: usa Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 93 Xref: hoptoad misc.headlines:2610 alt.flame:241 In article <826@pbhyc.UUCP> djo@pbhyc.UUCP (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: -In article <21198@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: -> Look, sometimes it's NECESSARY to kill people. - -Oh? When? "When it's kill or be killed." That means someone else is -trying to kill you ... unnecessarily. Screw that. Sorry, no can parse. Wanna run that one by me again? I'm worried about the possibility (not farfetched, given that I live in Oakland) that some subhuman armed with a pipe wrench or a baseball bat might break into my apartment intending to cave my head in, and all you can say is "Screw that"? Nothing short of lethal force is going to do me a damned bit of good in that situation! ->- If we outlaw ->-handguns, we will significantly reduce shooting deaths in ->-this country. -> ->Right, just like Prohibition got rid of alcohol and the current drug ->laws have cured drug abuse. - -Actually... Consider this: - -1) England has gun control. -2) There were about five gun related deaths in the entire COUNTRY - last year. -Therefore, -3) Either - a) Gun control works, - or - b) the English couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Or c) England has a much lower violent crime rate *across the board*, due to major sociological differences between Britain and the USA. The USA crime statistics include areas where *millions* of people live in overcrowded, economically depressed areas like Harlem, East Oakland, the Tenderloin, etc...how many British people live in comparable areas? A fair comparison would be to look at Britain versus North Dakota, Alaska, or some other sparsely-populated state, which closely approximates the economic and population density distribution of Britain. But then the comparison is not nearly as spectacular, so I'm not at all surprised that gun control advocates haven't made it... -According to a Supreme Court decision made about 60 years ago, long before -the whole "gun control" debate became what it is today, the right to bear -arms is a right held by the populace, but not by its members. The right -for any individual or group to bear arms may be restricted by legislation -at any time. Yes, for people like convicted felons. The burden of proof is (or should be...) on the State to show that any particular person is unfit to be allowed to posess a handgun. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all to claim that this right is held by the "populace", but by default not by individuals. -You lovers-of-the-artificial-phallus like to ignore the first part of the -Second Amendment: - -"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, -the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - - [...] - -This is the *only* amendment in the Bill of Rights where the Founders took -care to specify their purpose in putting it there. We may reasonably -believe that they wanted to clarify what it was *and*was*not* intended -for -- and it was *not* intended to let paranoids keep guns in their homes. Please explain how the first clause of that amendment places ANY restrictions on what constitute valid reasons to exercise the right to bear arms. This is just one of many reasons, put in to emphasize that the right of the people to organize a militia seperate from the army is specifically protected. If the founders had foreseen the current paranoia on the part of gun control advocates, I have no doubts that they would have made a much broader statement. And while you're at it, you might take a crack at explaining how your gun-control agenda is consistent with the Constitutional mandate that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Your characterization of people who want to keep guns for home defense as "paranoids" is absurd, given the fact that SOME of us are not so fortunate as to live in neighborhoods free of violent crime. -...and guns *are* surrogate dicks. Yeah, and for some people, posting to Usenet is a substitute for masturbation. It looks like you're shootin' blanks, bub! Not only do you have a painfully obvious case of WEAPON ENVY, but you show all the symptoms of *brain* envy! -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley