From: uk09365@nx08.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:26:27 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul29.220230.1941@PacBell.COM> rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod  
Williams) writes:
> > "dal" <p00056@mail.psi.net> writes:
> >> kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki) writes:
> 
> >>Poppycock.  The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private  
citizens
> >>to "keep and bear arms".  If it had, there would have been wording  
such as
> >>"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be  
infringed".
> >
> >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.
> >Because of sickening rationalizations like yours, our lives are slowly  
being
> >dictated, decided and determined by the few and not the will of the  
individual. 
> >The hell with the courts, the law, idiot politicians and especially  
you...
> >Ill will defend my right to exist as a free man, and not a slave to  
ignorance.
> >
> >We are men, not chattel for you amusement.
> 
> 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".  The tragedy is that your obsessive ranting is
> actually taken seriously by our idiot lawmakers.

Rod,

I assume that your post above represents the calm, articulate,
rationality of the anti-gun lawmakers.  Of course, the Founding
Fathers did know about *six-guns*.  They did not use a revolver
or self-load design (although designs of semi-automatic, revolving
cylinder and perhaps even full-automatic firearms were already
in existence at least on paper.)  They did have multi-shot guns.
Instead of bullets in 6 cylinders being aligned with and fired
through 1 barrel, they had 6 barrels (or more) on one gun.

Your inferences about "uzis and rocket-launchers and personal
nuclear devices" indicates that you are the one going overboard
with obsessive ranting.  Do you contend that the NRA or any other
mainstream pro-gun organization explicitly promotes the
unrestricted ownership of any of these (hint: even for semi-auto
Uzis / lookalikes they are opposed to ownership by minors,
felons, mental incompetents, etc) much less the civilian
ownership of "personal nuclear devices?"  On a related
note, where could one obtain these "personal nuclear devices
anyway?"

Finally, please expound on your assertion that ascribing
modern relevance to the 1789 view of "people" is indication
of living in a "flim flam reality."  Do you apply this 
thinking only when "people" and "arms" are used together
(ie. in the 2nd Amendment) or to all usages of the word
"people."  If the former, why?  If the latter, do you contend
that the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments are outdated
threats to the social fabric, etc. [you would not be alone
in contending this; but I want to see it from you.]

Robert K.
 
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton