From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:33:09 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <19920914105429ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum)
>Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
>Date: 14 Sep 92 17:55:24 GMT

>In article <2AB24A56.16385@news.service.uci.edu>, on 12 Sep 92 19:51:50 GMT,
>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

>>
>>In article <1wwn3dg.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>>>
>>>       One problem which had been an obstacle for both the anti WoD and the
>>>anti WoG groups has been the adament position taken by the majority of the
>>>pro-gun groups that the WoD is fair, that those who have nothing to hide
>>>should not care about being searched, etc.
>>
>>This is a major inconsistency in the pro-gun/WoD camp.  "If you are
>>innocent, then what are you so afraid of?" they ask.
>>
>>Well, okay, if you're innocent, then why are you so afraid of background
>>checks and waiting periods?
>>
>>This is a < P ^ ~P > situation.  Ever study number theory, people?
>>
>Because it allows the government to infringe upon a right protected
>in the Constitution. Using this logic, nobody should be afraid of
>a law requiring a waiting period for somebody to exercise one's right
>of free speech, or a law requiring a waiting period before a newspaper
>can publish an article. After all, the use of speech or press by some
>people can also be exercised with deadly effect.

> ^stuff deleted:

>>What shall we call this, then?  < Q ^ ~Q >?  While I understand how some
>>people want a gun (I have shot 227/300 myself and low 40's with my bow,
>>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.
>>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?  Does this
>>then mean that you can keep a gun if you are PART of a civil militia?
>>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?  We ignore the whole first part of the
>>amendment.
>>
>Just because there is a clause in the second Amendment stating a reason
>why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon does
>not change the categorical nature of the right. It wouldn't make the
>least bit of difference if the right were not necessary for the
>operation of a well-regulated militia; the prohibition upon the
>government against infringement is nonetheless present.

>>Regards,
>>Janis C.
>>
>    ====Jack====

Yes, I agree completely!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.activism