From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,alt.pagan,talk.politics.guns,alt.folklore.urban,talk.politics.drugs,alt.civil-liberty,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:08:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Western Washington University

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.

	I've never met anyone like that.  (pro-gun/pro-WoD)   

Most of the anti-individualists I have met have been consistant to some 
degree:  For the WoD, against guns, drugs, or any hazardous item that a 
little adult boy or girl in this day care center called life could hurt 
himself or others with.   They tend to make exceptions for the things 
they enjoy, for example a smoker will make an exception for tobbaco, but 
a few want to ban that one too.  I assume there are some control freaks 
who would have been against guns, except they own them, so the result
could be a pro-WoD/pro-guns person.    

>Well, okay, if you're innocent, then why are you so afraid of background
>checks and waiting periods?

	I don't mind checks, most people don't.  The NRA backed computer
instant checks (same concept as credit card purchaces) such as the ones
in VA or IL are ok, imo.  Waiting periods are another matter, as there 
is no benefit to them.  Either of the two questions you pose, sound 
typical of the word games that control freaks, who utterly reject the
"rights" based arguments from the start, use to put people on the defensive
for disagreeing with them.  In fact, they sound like the kind of questions
a cop would ask someone.


>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.

	They didn't know about high capacity printing presses either.

>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.  

	Sorry, you're a little confused.  The people who have the right 
to keep and bear arms are the same people who have the right to be secure 
in their persons and effects.   Even recently the SC has affirmed this.

The ammendment reads: 	(lifted from t.p.g recently)

X, being necessary to Y, Z shall be the rule.     

Where 	X is "a well regulated militia"
	Y is "a free state"
	Z is "the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall 
not be infringed"

Z is the rule, and is not dependant on X or Y.

	"The People really doesn't mean the people" argument re the 2nd 
Ammendment has been discredited again and again, by grammasticians 8^), 
by the supreme court, and by the very words of the founders on the subject, 
but like any urban legend, it lives on.

		>Regards,
		>Janis C. 
Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: alt.activism