From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:51:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.220230.1941@PacBell.COM> rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:

>Oh give me a fucking break.  As if the Founding Fathers knew
>anything about *six-guns*, much less Uzis and rocket-launchers
>and personal nuclear devices.

Actually, people were experimenting with multi-barreled weapons in the
late 1700's.  Though they certainly weren`t in common use, the idea was
fairly well-known.  There were of course cannons, which could wreak a
lot more havoc than any revolver or semi-auto pistol.  A cannon isn't
concealable of course, but neither is an AK-47.  Even in the 1700's,
there were some very powerful weapons available.  The 2nd amendment
doesn't say muskets, it says arms.

>To claim that their 1789 view of
>"arms" and "people" have any conceivable relevance to the social
>conditions we live in, and the weapons of mass destruction that
>are tearing our society apart today is truly to live in a "flim
>flam reality".

You don't think the 1789 view of "people" is still valid?  That we
citizens of the US don't still have rights which need to be protected?
Does this apply to the whole Constitution, or just to the one amendment
that you don't like?  I'm not at all sure what you mean by this.

About "arms" - undeniably, the Founders did not know about Uzis,
AK-47s, and other high-firepower weapons.  But a person killed with an
18th century musket was just as dead.  The authors of the second
amendment were entrusting the ownership of their deadliest weapons to
the populace.  They knew that, and thought it was a good idea.
Considering that their main aim was a check on tyrannical government,
it would be in keeping with their principles for the weapons kept by
the populace to keep pace with technology.  Posing a credible threat to
a would-be tyrant does not require "personal nuclear devices" in the
hands of the people, but it does require more than antique
muzzle-loaders.

To apply a couple of analogies, is the first amendment no longer valid
because the Founders couldn't have conceived of the kind of pornography
we have today (or of songs like "Some Girls" or "Cop Killer")?  Does
the first amendment not apply to the electronic media, since the
Founders could not have imagined that?  Is the fourth amendment
obsolete because the Founders could not have imagined the drug problem
we have?  You are treading on dangerous ground with this line of
reasoning.  Technology will change; the principle that people have
rights which need protection, especially from government, has not
changed and is not about to.

You have some funny definition of "weapons of mass destruction"; I'll
assume you're referring to guns.  They are not "tearing our society
apart", our society is tearing itself apart.  You would attempt to
treat a symptom, while the disease goes merrily on.  And in treating
the symptom this way, you would endanger decent people by denying them
the means of self-defense.  I cannot accept that.

>The tragedy is that your obsessive ranting is
>actually taken seriously by our idiot lawmakers.

The real tragedy is that so many of our idiot lawmakers think that gun
control will reduce crime, when in fact it has always failed miserably
to do so in this country.  Why disarming the law-abiding segment of the
public and leaving the criminals armed to the teeth (which is all gun
control does) seems like a good idea to them is a mystery to me.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:837 talk.politics.guns:18019 talk.abortion:29006