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!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame Subject: another twist on the gun issue Message-ID: <220@ttidcc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 16:04:29 EST Article-I.D.: ttidcc.220 Posted: Thu Feb 7 16:04:29 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 06:18:28 EST Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA. Lines: 48 Xref: watmath net.politics:7516 net.flame:8293 REPRINTED FROM AN EARLIER BROADCAST: The real flap over gun control is that EVERY TIME WEAPONS HAVE BEEN REGISTERED, GOVERMENT HAS EVENTUALLY CONFISCATED THE WEAPONS. Democracy is a delicate thing - and the political party you agree with may not be the party in power when the confiscation begins. I'd be a very unhappy German if I were a registered gun owner when Hitler came into power. "Good" done for "bad" motives has a way of spoiling on the shelf. Democracy is a delicate thing, and it considers all options (including communism, facism, religious rule, etc, IF they have enough votes). And there is a point at which voting rights can be surmounted, if the people IN power are the people WITH the power. This was one of the CONSIDERED REASONS (derived from the contemporary writings of the people who drafted the constitution) for the inclusion of the now-famous "right to bear arms". I wish I had the quote at my fingertips - but I think it was Adams - and the gist of it was that an armed populus was a good and sufficient deterrent to any petty tyrants with big ideas. NOT that we'd blow away the petty tyrant, but that the petty tyrant would have to have some kind of majority of his own behind him before he tried something, in which case he would be in power because of DEMOCRATIC CONSENT, not brute force. Constitutionality is an arguable issue as well - what was good and true 200 years ago may not bear on today. However, not much point in wrongly reinterpreting what was said 200 years ago as a poor argument for the issue today. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't think the constitution is broke on this issue. (PERSONAL OPINION, in case we forget) Everybody is interested in reducing crime, particularly armed and violent crime (surely I'm not going to be flamed for the use of "everybody" here). The actuality is that crooks are armed. Because of the constitutional issue, I do not believe in registering guns. If you want some social seal of approval for people who do have weapons (to keep them out of the "wrong hands") why not license the people, whether or not they own/carry a gun? Every upstanding citizen over 16 is licensed to carry, like driving a car. Whether they choose to do so or not is their own business. When you catch a crook with a weapon you jail him and (for first time offenders) revoke his license. Second time around, it's no agrument. He's using a weapon -> no license -> jail. And when confiscation time comes around, our petty tyrant doesn't know who owns what, but he knows that there are plenty of "right minded" americans out there who could be. I don't actually favor this approach either, but it makes more sense than registering "guns" in order to control "criminals" (read "apples" and "oranges"). Anyhow, that's one reason why people get excited about it. People get pretty excited about freedom of speech, too, and it has as many points of contradiction as this one. So who said democracy was easy?