From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: A Coffee-House Conversation with an Imaginary Nadja (Was Re: Eva Clayton bio)
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 20:31:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.093559.6167@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.215919.27758@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>Do yourself a favor and read about the second amendment - an initial
>>draft that did limit firearms to organized militias was rejected
>>by the founders. And the solution to the 'firepower' question is
>>to permit the ownership of more sophisticated firearms.

>"Ok, I'll Bite.  Weren't these the same *enlightened* founders that made
>sure that their defined rights still enabled them to be slave owners?
>Aren't these the same folks who really didn't want women involved in the
>process of running the country--at all?"

Of course.

>"Well then, if they were intellectually wrong about those things,
>couldn't it be possible that they were also intellectually wrong about
>the second amendment and its vague meaning (which you think is so
>precise)?"

>"Why, yes, it is."

Don't put words in my mouth. It isn't vague at all, especially if you
read the rejected drafts and the correspondence.
This was one case when they had it straight. If there had been no
firearms in private hands, we'd still be saluting the Union Jack.

>"Uh-huh.  Now some folks in this country think this country would be a
>better place to live if everyone of us carried around our own little
>snub-nosed pistols, small and cute little assault rifles, cuddly
>bazookas and even personal nuclear devices (PNDs), but that seems like
>it might be a grand and sweeping interpretation of the second amendment,
>something the founding fathers did not intend at all.  Now, shoot me if
>I'm wrong, but if there were no handguns and no assault rifles anywhere,
>absolutely anywhere, in this country, how many deaths would we have from
>shootings?"

Gee, Aaron. You are naive. Whose going to have the guns? Drugs are illegal 
and criminals still have drugs. Convicted felons are not supposed to have
firearms - and GUESS WHAT? They still do. If you honestly believe that
a firearms ban would restrict anyone but the law abiding, you are truly
living in a suburban dream world. 

What do you think would have happened at Pine Ridge if the People had
been unarmed? Many dead Indians and another FBI cover up. The government
isn't going to give up its guns. And they aren't going to stop using them
on the folks they consider inferior. As one of the folks that they do
consider inferior (and you do to, considering the stupid words you put
in my mouth), I have no desire whatsoever to see all the guns in the
hands of criminals and the white government.

>"But what about the government taking away all our individual rights,
>stealing our homes, our property, stealing our children, rapists in the
>streets, cracked-up wackos breaking into our homes and killing us just
>to get our pocket-change?"

They'll still have guns. Foxes have always liked short claws on rabbits.

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:07:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Spike Lee's Comment
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA