From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 18:51:29 GMT

In article <2AB24A56.16385@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>Well, okay, if you're innocent, then why are you so afraid of background
>checks and waiting periods?

Huh?  The NRA proposed the ONLY national background check system; the
anti-gun folk fought it tooth and nail.  They preferred the Brady
bill, which has NO check provision, merely a waiting period AND a
"pocket veto" provision.  Under the brady bill, a seller may not
legally deliver a gun until after the police chief has acknowledged
that he's received the information, but it doesn't require him to do
so.  Since such refusals are routinely used in order to implement gun
bans in a number of jurisdictions, it is absurd to say "trust us".

Waiting periods can't provide any benefits because the only people who
commit "crimes of passion" are people who have a HISTORY of "getting
mad" AND attacking people.  Even the gun controllers admit that the
brady bill won't stop criminals, but since they're the ONLY people
committing crimes with guns....  Waiting periods do have costs because
victims sometimes become aware of imminent threats.  (No, police won't
come and protect you.)

>Ever study number theory, people?  

Ever study the history of gun control in the US?  ANY discretion by
govt is abused.

If you want to argue for "reasonable controls", you have an obligation
to OPPOSE unreasonable controls.  AFTER you get rid of the existing
ones, we can talk about "trust us", but until you do....

>so I am not emoitionally averse to them), I really don't think the
>Founding Fathers knew about assault weapons when they wrote the thing.

Sure they did.  While they didn't have digital watches, there's
nothing new in gun technology besides LESS lethal guns and plastic
stocks.  Palmer described every modern mechanism in the 1600s.  Puckle
patented an automatic weapon in the 1750s.  Single barrel repeaters
were common in the 1300s.  The "blunderbuss" is a MORE LETHAL
version of the modern short-barrel shotgun.

>Besidesw, why hasn't anyone pointed out the fact that the right to keep
>and bear arms is there for the purpose of CIVILIAN MILITIA? 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

"well regulated Militia" was defined by Fletcher in Politcal Works,
pub'd in 1749, as being an armed people NOT under the control of govt,
so it is inconsistent with any by-govt control on the people.
Madison, Jefferson, et al, wrote a lot about the 2nd amendment that is
consistent with that definition and inconsistent with any "therefore
govt can control who can have guns" theory.  The legislative history
also works out that way.  (Gerry proposed an change to remove a clause
which he claimed would allow govt to disarm people, and that change
was accepted.  Another change, to add "for the common defense", was
rejected.)

The first clause is about the distribution of military power, that
the civilian power should be supreme to the govt's power.  If
anything, it is a restriction on govt power.

The second clause is necessary to implement that distribution.

It is, as Jefferson said, a right to the means of revolution.

>Why is it that we talk so much about the "right to keep and bear arms,"
>and no one ever talks about the citizens' responsibility to use them as
>part of a civilian militia?

Because there is no such responsibility in the 2nd amendment.  If
there is such a responsibility, it is one of ALL people, not just
those who choose to own guns.

Note that such a responsibility was implemented in 1792 by a universal
gun ownership requirement.  While only males of military age were
subject to being called up, EVERY household was obligated to have
appropriate guns.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu