From: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 08:31:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.220230.1941@PacBell.COM> rjwill6@PacBell.COM
(Rod Williams) writes:
[...]
>>Excuse me .... Why dont you get stuffed? Why is it that most of the 
>>signers of the Bill of Rights have written about the right to bear arms
>>as a personal right? In what flim flam reality do you exist? The domain of
>>our Bill of Rights is entirely and utterly the province of the individual.
[...]
>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.  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".

First of all, in what way is the 1789 view of "people" irrelevant in
modern times?  In the constitution, "People" was a term of art.  It's
legal meaning cannot have changed in that document, or else laws would
have no fixed meaning.  If you used "people" in a socialogical sense,
what is so different about these times when compared to all of history
preceeding 1789?  How does that affect the gun control argument?

The sense in which "arms" has changed in 200 years is a little more
debatable.  You are correct in pointing out that weapons technology
has advanced considerably.  Modern weapons are truly amazing.

(However: Gunpowder weaponry was introduced to Europe in the 1200's,
multiple-shot guns were built in the 1300's, and revolving breach
weapons were built in the 1400's.  The Puckle machine gun was tested
in 1722.  Admittedly, while the firing rates were amazing at the time,
they are far below modern rates due to the need to use flintlock
ignition since percussion ignition wasn't invented until 1814.  Since
then, advances in materials and explosives chemistry have led to
smaller, faster, more reliable fully-automatic weapons, the Uzi being
one of them.  I'm sure other folks can provide better information than
I can.  As for rockets: "...and the rockets' red glare..."  Not exactly
a TOW missile though...:-))

Note that in 1789 it was quite routine for private citizens to own any
of the weapons that the military might use, including state-of-the-art
rifles and cannons.

I suppose it comes down to a question of whether "arms" meant people
could keep and bear all the types of weapons available in 1789, or
whether it meant the people could keep and bear state-of-the-art
weapons of war, as they could in 1789.

In searching for the appropriate meaning, I suggest we consider the
interpretation of the word "press" which has always been held to refer
to the state-of-the-art in communications technology.

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

For us pro gun folks, the tragedy is that gun-grabbers' obsessive
ranting is actually taken seriously by our idiot lawmakers.
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections