From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More gun control.
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:10:13 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov19.024644.9859@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In <1e7diuINNelm@news.aero.org> helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov15.034442.22948@oracle.us.oracle.com> you write:
>>>In <1d4udqINN9i7@news.aero.org> helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) writes:
>>>>What I propose is making possession of ANY handgun at ANY time ANYWHERE
>>                                             ^^^^^^^  
>>>>OUTSIDE YOUR OWN HOME a serious felony with serious mandatory time.

>>>Robert, please get hold of a copy of the Constitution one of these
>>>days and read the danged thing.

>>>The Second Amendment specifically mentions the right to bear arms as
>>>well as the right to keep them.

>>Yes, I am as familiar as you are with the Constitution and the Bill of
>>Rights. I've been an ACLU member for at least 20 years. We specialize in
>>that stuff, as you're probably aware.

>I am aware.  You, however, seem sadly remiss in actually reading the
>Constitution.  See below for more evidence.

>>But you will notice I said nothing about rifles and shotguns, which, to
>>my thinking, are much less of a problem. They're not easily concealed.
>>Going to "founder's intent" (as it's so preciously described by
>>Rehnquist-style conservatives), the founding fathers clearly never
>>envisioned the kind, number, and deadliness of modern handguns.

>They also neve envisioned radio, TV, and computer networks.  Do you
>think government can censor them?

>>They were barely familiar with dueling pistols. If you're talking about
>>the 'right to bear arms', as in having a "citizen's militia", being
>>able to bear rifles and shotguns should be enough to satisfy those
>>who nurture fantasies of protecting themselves from Big Brother when
>>the dreaded police state is upon us or defending their family from
>>alien invaders (now that the Russians are a greatly reduced possibility).

>Although rifles and shotguns are certainly useful, there is a lot to
>be said for pistols and semi-automatic weapons as well.  In addition,
>let's add that it doesn't matter what you think we should be satisfied
>with.  What matter is what the Constitution says, and it says we have
>the right to bear arms.  Not just the arms you like, but arms period.

>After all, you don't really need TV and radio to get the message out.
>The printed word and unaided voice were good enough for our
>forefathers so the First Amendment doesn't protect radio and TV, right?

>>I don't see any difference between keeping handguns OFF the streets and
>>making it illegal to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre. They are both
>>a reasonable limitation that balances the absolute Constitutional
>>right with a citizen's need to feel safe and secure in his person and
>>property.

>You might be able to argu this if the government was able to keep
>citizens safe and secure in their person and property.  As we all
>know, that is not the case.

He might be able to argue it if it were true.  But it isn't, wasn't, and
never will be possible to make it illegal to "shout fire in a crowded
theater."

The ACTUAL quote is "FALSELY shout fire in a theater and cause a panic."

*That's* what the quote is.  And its meaning is quite different.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american