From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:46:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.170211.18927@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>
>In the first place who said they couldn't "carry concealed" - they
>could apply for licenses and get the guns.  Hell, they sell them
>in department stores here in Georgia!  I've never argued for a total
>ban on guns, just a reasonable policy, and I'm arguing against people
>who say that because the RKBA is mentioned in the 2nd amendment that
>no laws limiting them can be passed.
>
>So let's look at Killeen, again. There are no laws restricting the
>right of honest, law-abiding citizens to buy weapons.  Or on anyone
>else since it is in infringement of our rights to even ask us who
>we are, or make us wait while they see if the id we have is real.
>So maybe 50% of the people in the restaurant in Killeen were sitting
>there comfortably with .38's on them.  And the guy walks in with
>a semi-automatic rifle.  Do you agree that a nut would be more likely to
>do just that - go for the big weapon.  So what would the people do -
>make it routine to carry semi-automatic's and then the guy walks in
>with a fully automatic Uzi or Mac-10.
>
>This is what I'm trying to argue against - some kind of arms race
>on our streets where you can have any weapon you want, but can't
>send your kid to the burger king without an armed escort - lunchtime
>in Beirut.

You have a *very* poor grasp of existing laws as they relate to
firearms in the US as demonstrated by your reply. Have you ever
heard of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act of
1934, etc.? I suspect you better check those out before you make assertions
that additional laws will help deal with folks carrying 
"fully automatic Uzi or Mac-10"'s. Also, check out how many crimes have
been committed with legally (per NFA 1934) owned and registered full automatics.
The people in Killeen *were* restricted from carrying concealed handguns.
You also have a mighty faulty grasp of just how much advantage
an "assault weapon" would give you over a room full of people armed
with concealed handguns. You need to check some facts before you
make largely invalid assertions. I'm sure some additional folks
are going to point out the error of your ways in detail, so I'm
not going to add to the torrent substantially :-).

Oh yeah, better check out the relevant laws *before* you
(or anyone in Kileen, Texas -- hint, hint) go to Walmart,
buy a handgun, and tuck it in your pocket. I think you'll
be amazed just how rough it is to carry concealed legally
in most parts of the US. 

>
>> You make the *very* common and faulty assumption that something can
>> be eliminated by legislating it away. This didn't work for
>> prohibition, isn't working for the war on drugs, and won't
>> work (doesn't work in places which have already legislated it
>> like DC, NYC, Chicago, etc.) for guns. All it does is create
>> a new criminal class from some formerly law abiding citizens
>> and make the rest *more* likely to become victims of the
>> WOD and the criminal class. You can bet that if it is profitable to 
>> bring illegal drugs into the country, it will be just as profitable to bring
>> illegal guns into the country. It would also be relatively easy
>> to set illegal manufacture of fully automatic submachine guns
>> domestically (much like the basement "labs" manufacture LSD,
>> PCPs, and the "crack" variant of cocaine).
>> 
>And yet we have laws against murder - even though we can't "legislate
>it away".  You also make the faulty argument that since something is
>going to happen anyway - we shouldn't control it.  I've heard so

No what I'm saying is that additional laws only impact the innocent
and (currently) law abiding citizens to their detriment. "Victimless
crime" legislation is almost always moralisticly or emotionally driven 
with very little reference to fact and logic. Murder is infringing the
rights of other by depriving them to their right of life (liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness). Using firearms for criminal purposes
is *already* illegal, additional laws only infringe the rights of
other citizens to keep, bear, or use for legitimate purposes (including
self defense) firearms. There are already *plenty* of controls on firearms
in the US. Downright Draconian measures in places like NYC, DC,
and Chicago have produced no tangible results other than an
*increase* in violent crimes. 

Others will point out (hopefully statistically -- I know they
exist I've seen them here almost every month) that criminals
seldom use legally obtained weapons to committ violent crimes.

>many arguments like "More people are killed by drunk drivers then by
>guns, so let's eliminate the laws on gun".  Should we then argue,
>more people are killed in car accidents then by drunk drivers, so let's
>make it legal to drive drunk?"  We could continue that idea until you
>reach the point where there are no laws since we're all going to die
>anyway.
>

The little piece about "infringing on the rights of others" comes
into play here again. What you mention is an oft torched strawman
hereabouts. Hang out here for a month or two, just lurk, and see 
what you learn. You are *not* the first to bring up these arguments.

>> IMHO more laws are not any kind of solution for much of any
>> contemporary problem.
>
>You mean more laws on guns, right?
>

Nope, more laws period. There are so many laws now that the average
person can't get through the average day without violating some
knowingly or unknowingly. It is *unreasonable* to expect the
average citizen to have a grasp on all the existing laws
much less adding to it. The only area where additional law
needs to be added are the new situations such as electronic
copyright, etc. The laws dealing with violent crime were
pretty well complete in jolly olde England before the American
Revolution. 

A little research into what the founding fathers intended by adding
the second amendment would also probably be beneficial to your
understanding of where pro-RKBA folks are coming from.
-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns