From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:41:53 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <2AB24A56.16385@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
>Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
>Date: 12 Sep 92 19:51:50 GMT

>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.

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

>This is a < P ^ ~P > situation.  Ever study number theory, people?  

>>This was typical of the messages
>>I received, many of which argued that it was "disgusting the way left-wingers
>>stood up for they drug-dealers and other scum while opposing decent
>>Americans." Others simply took the position that people who oppose the WoD
>>HAVE no rights. Only ONE person who responded (out of more than 12) felt
>>that any right other than the right to bear arms was under attack!

>Oh, Christ.  

>>       Clearly this is a problem. The pro-gun advocates feel they are
>>fighting a losing battle to protect their rights against government
>>encrochment, while simultaneously alienating those who feel that other
>>rights are being lost through their support for the very laws which remove
>>those rights. Why should _anyone_ support the goals of people who oppose
>>their own  (and, yes, I know that it works both ways - many of us who are to
>>the left of center DO favor gun control - although few do so to the extent
>>that most pro-gun advocates favor limitations on other rights such as
>>abortion or free speech).

>What shall we call this, then?  < Q ^ ~Q >?  While I understand how some
>people want a gun (I have shot 227/300 myself and low 40's with my bow,
>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.
>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.  

>Regards,
>Janis C. 

The reason for securing the right of our civil population to keep and 
bear arms is precisely to ensure a proper regulation of the militia [armed 
forces]. How else are you going to control [i.e. regulate] a military except 
by allowing citizens to remained armed?  IMO, this is the only rational 
interpretation of the II Ammendment right, whether or not it coincides with 
original intent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15955 talk.politics.misc:43899 soc.college:3786