Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Gun Control, again...(and Rights) - (nf) Message-ID: <1669@inmet.UUCP> Date: Wed, 1-Aug-84 06:56:27 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.1669 Posted: Wed Aug 1 06:56:27 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 3-Aug-84 02:07:51 EDT Lines: 32 #R:bunker:-47700:inmet:3900138:000:1517 inmet!nrh Jul 31 14:16:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.flame / ihuxq!ken / 1:26 pm Jul 28, 1984 > >Wait a minute. You either trust your government or you don't. >If you think the government is so untrustworthy that it will confiscate >registered handguns, what do you think it will do to you if it no >longer has to be bothered with the rights of alleged criminals? >A govenment that can't distinguish between registration and confiscation >will not understand the difference between accused and convicted, >innocent and guilty. Please, if you cherish your right to bear arms, >including "tools" whose only purpose is to blow away human beings at >close range, you had better cherish the rest of that beautiful document >just as dearly. Why, thanks a lot for burdening us with your assumptions, ken. 1. I trust the government neither to distinguish between the accused and convicted nor to understand the difference between the innocent and guilty. That's why neither compulsory gun registration nor criminal trial without a jury are good ideas. 2. It is not inhumane or awful to think that some parts of the constitution are good and some are bad (depending, of course on which ones you think are good or bad :-) for example: I think prohibition was a stupid idea, but it was, for a time, part of the constitution. I still think income tax is a stupid, evil idea, but there is an amendment, not ratified until 1913, that makes it (supposedly) legal (though it is arguable whether its framers originally meant "income" to include "wages").