X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:43:21 CST
From:         "Cry and the World laughs at You" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      re : uzi on the street

the purpose of guns is to kill things.  they also have the side effect of
sometimes only wounding them.
there is a significant difference.

     The purpose of guns is creating a controlled explosion, sending
     either air or a small piece of metal through a metal shaft.

     I am sorry about what happened to your mom. Stupid people shouldn't
     breed, much less hunt, and I don't think there's anyone on this
     list who thinks hunting in residential areas and shooting holes
     through houses is a good idea.

when the constitution was written, the "arms" that one would bear were
significantly different from the ones that exist now.  i will support
the constitutional right of americans to bear muskets or the occassional
single-shot muzzle-loaded pistol, but i do not think that the "framers"
of the constitution would have included this had they expected it to be
extended to modern weaponry.  they needed people to have guns in order to
fight wars since there was no standing militia.  this is no longer a need.
our militia is so big it can stand anywhere it damn well pleases.  i can
see no reason for anyone in our country to need to own an uzi.  i can see
a lot (2 words!!) of reasons why they should not.

     During the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, volunteers from
     the west (appalachians and west) carried early rifled muskets while
     the standard infantry weapon was a smoothbore musket. A smoothbore
     musket has a shorter range and causes a lesser wound than a rifled
     musket would, so then, the civilian had, one on one, a better
     weapon than the infantryman.

     Before and into the Civil War, and even into the Indian Wars,
     breechloading cased weapons were available, and even Winchesters,
     which were repeaters, were in the hands of civilians while the
     the standard infantry weapon was a muzzleloading rifled musket.
     Breechloading weapons were better because they did not require
     the soldier to be standing, making a target of himself, while
     reloading. The repeating rifle is able to fire multiple rounds
     in less time it took a standard infantryman to fire and reload
     once with a muzzleloader, and the Indians, with repeaters, were
     able to fight soldiers armed with breechloading single shot rifles
     and wipe the field with them. The only time the Army won was when
     they came at dawn or attacked women and children.

     Do I think I need a strong defense against my government? Ask the
     members of the Whiskey Rebellion and the Native Americans.
     brni, I commend your position but I cannot follow it.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is
big enough to take it all away.
              --Barry Goldwater

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained in this post are not the
opinions of the Administration, Faculty, or Student Body of
South Dakota State University.  Hell, they might not even
be mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU