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!regard From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame Subject: adendum Message-ID: <224@ttidcc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 11:56:25 EST Article-I.D.: ttidcc.224 Posted: Fri Feb 8 11:56:25 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 05:00:19 EST Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA. Lines: 34 Xref: watmath net.politics:7511 net.flame:8287 Jerry, I use caps for emphasis, not shouting. I take to heart your advice to use _underlines_ instead. 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. Obviously not clear in my contribution to the net. And, since it isn't an argument that I support, I am not interested in the details of implementation. I just felt that conferring the right (relatively across the board, as the 2nd amendment intended) made more sense to me in terms of apprehending people who-shouldn't-be-carrying-weapons-but-are (the kind of people the attorneys are really after, according to my attorney friends, through this kind of legislation) and has a more negligible impact on people who-shouldn't- be-hasselled-about-guns-one-way-or-another. Again, the implementation isn't of interest to me, cause I don't think it's broke. And you are quite right that, given the Brits peculiarly advanced civilization, guns haven't been confiscated in Britain - yet. The question to consider is what would happen if Britain became a sattelite of, say, Northern Ireland, and every weapon was listed? But, yes, it does contradict my argument. I should have included a span of time when I said HISTORICALLY. No, strike that -- the question to be considered _really_ is, what would you think about repealing an article from the Bill of Rights? Are you comfortable with that precident, given what you know about how the courts work? Would we next infringe the freedoms of speech (in "necessary" ways, of course, says our benevolent government)? Is is paranoia to be concerned with the preservation of the freedoms that a lot of people spent a lot of their lives preserving that now a lot of other people are trying to rescind? Do you really trust these other people to know what is right? Do you put your life and your freedoms in their hands? Sure, that's what democracy is, but that's also what the Bill of Rights is for -- to keep your neigh- bor out of your opinions.