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!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
From: hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (Jerry Hollombe)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame
Subject: re: adendum
Message-ID: <227@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 14:45:41 EST
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.227
Posted: Fri Feb  8 14:45:41 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 05:04:45 EST
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 62
Xref: watmath net.politics:7512 net.flame:8289

I expect this to be my last contribution to a debate I  consider  to  be  a
futile waste of time.  Still without taking a position ....


>From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
>Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame
>Subject: adendum
>Message-ID: <224@ttidcc.UUCP>
>
>Jerry, I use caps for emphasis, not shouting.  I take to heart your
>advice to use _underlines_ instead.

Didn't mean to jump on that.  I should make more allowance for new  people.
Sorry.

>I mean licensing people to carry guns, like licensing people to drive
>which is not the same thing as licensing weapons and licensing cars.  One
>is confering the right, the other is tracing the object.  ...

I believe I responded correctly to your previous posting.  Your  suggestion
seemed  to  be  to  license  everyone over 16 to carry a gun and revoke the
license when they commit a  crime  (a  concept  that,  frankly,  scares  me
spitless).  I  pointed  out that driver's licenses don't work this way, and
for obvious good reasons.  I didn't mention  licensing  guns  except  as  a
logical extension of the driver's license argument.


>                                 ...  And, since it isn't an argument
>that I support, I am not interested in the details of implementation.

Making a point with an argument you don't support?  You really  should  run
for office. (-:


>                                                           ... The question
>to consider is what would happen if Britain became a sattelite of, say,
>Northern Ireland, and every weapon was listed?

There was supposed to be a (-:  around  here  somewhere,  right?  You  just
forgot,  right?  (Suppose  the  United States became a satellite of Mexico.
Suppose the moon fell down and hit the Earth ...)


>No, strike that -- the question to be considered _really_ is, what would
>you think about repealing an article from the Bill of Rights?  ...

I haven't seen anyone propose repealing the 2nd amendment  here.  The  fact
is  that  the  "right to keep and bear arms" is _already_ infringed by both
state and federal governments.  The _only_  valid  points  for  debate  are
whether  and  how  much  the  present  infringement  should be increased or
decreased.


And that's the last I have to say on the subject.
-- 
==============================================================================
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp TTI                               If thy CRT offend thee, pluck
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.                      it out and cast it from thee.
Santa Monica, California  90405
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{vortex,philabs}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe