From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: God's a political naif (Re: God is the NRA, and He votes.)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:13:41 GMT

In <12728@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:

>In article <1992Aug4.223450.24741@mcs.anl.gov> user@machine.domain writes:
>>And so were the rest of the founding fathers...Or...maybe just you are!

>The founding fathers wore shoes that buckled and
>grew marijuana for rope.  Their choice of weapons
>were muzzle-loading and rarely concealable.

Well, I've got a couple of antique horse pistols at
home that aren't any bigger than a .357 magnum.

>They intended with the 2d amendment to foment occasional
>rebellion against the fascists and bureaucrats that
>typically entrench themselves in an aging government.

>They did not intend to suborn anarchy.

>Arming oneself with handguns while bleating "I need to
>protect my family from criminals" is a bastardization of
>the protection from government criminals that the 2d

Blair, I used to be anti-gun and have changed my mind. You
try and change attitudes with words like 'bleating', wrong
move. The killing and robbery is moving outward from D.C.
and getting too damn close to my home for comfort. I am
not bleating, and we have discussed obtaining a handgun for
protection. Why a handgun? Because a 12 guage doesn't fit
in the drawer of our nightstands and since we have a large
painting over the bed, I don't think Florence would like
me to replace it with a gun rack. In short, by the time I
got to wherever we had to store a shotgun, I'd probably
be dead. Hey, if you don't like guns don't buy one. But
stop screwing about with statistics to prove what can't
be proven, and keep your cotton pickin fingers off the 2nd.

>amendment guarantees, and indeed is an abrogation of the
>colligative nature of the government--formed as it is from
>the people--prescribed by the constitution.

>There are those, however, and I tend to believe their
>argument though I do not subscribe to their goals, who say
>that the concealable arms currently used for black-on-black
>violence are exactly those weapons of the rebellion
>Jefferson so dearly would have loved to predict.

>I doubt he'd go so far as to call our current government
>deserving of armed rebellion, and certainly not to the
>point that we should allow neighborhoods full of crack
>dealers access to weapons.  That is, the 2d isn't needed,
>right now, and the sum of people hurt would be lower under
>its suspension than under its continuation.  Certainly
>the damage to society would be violently decreased were
>the 2d amendment to be absent for a while.

>Keep the long guns, just give up the handguns:  the
>government would still be at our feet, and the gangsters
>would be up the creek.

See above. Oh and one other thing, the latest craze here is
carjacking, you know, where they come up to you in the gas
station or parking lot and demand your car or they will kill
you (and they have). With my Probe, I could very easily put
a .38 auto down beside my seat where I have to reach to
undo my seat belt, might save my life. Damned hard to do
with a long gun. Now mind you, I'm sure the police would
do their best to capture my killer (and they have killed
people who did not even resist), but that would be sad comfort
to Florence and to my son.

>I have no "chipping-away" sentiments.  I propose nothing
>permanent.  I believe the 2d amendment is THE source of our
>continuing liberty.  When Justice fails, the Laws be
>damned, and Might makes the Rights.  I'm merely pragmatic
>and capable of devising political solutions to social
>problems, even if they require an investment out-of-pocket
>--a risk-- to provide access to the gains.  What sort of
>descendant of the first Americans would I be if I couldn't?

>That's my opinion.  Call it dangerous if you want.  At
>least it doesn't carry the implicit threat of my being
>violent if I don't get my way.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>				--Blair
>				  "Go ahead.  Make my day."
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is this not a bit contradictory?

REB

Whose opinions are always his own.