In article <1993Apr14.182610.2330@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes: >In article <1993Apr14.120958.11363@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes: >>  >> The Second Amendment is about sovereignty, not sporting goods. > >	Perfectly correct, but it won't make any difference.  Hmm.  I beg to differ.  It will probably make a big difference at some point.  > >> Self defense is a valid reason for RKBA. > >	The vast majority get through life without ever having to >	own, use or display a firearm. Besides, there are other >	means of self-protection which can be just as effective >	as firearms.   Thankfully, it is true that the majority go through life without having to use a firearm.  Howver, there are situations where firearms are the most effective means of self protection.  What other means do you propose as equally effective?   > >> Freedoms and rights are not dependent on public opinion, necessity, or >> scientific scrutiny. > >	New to this planet ? EVERYTHING is dependent on either public >	or political opinion, usually political. To imagine that >	inalienable 'rights' are somehow wired into the vast cold >	cosmos is purest egotism and a dangerous delusion.  New to this country? New to political theory? Alas, I was speaking of principle.  Without principle, all attempts at republican forms of gov't are futile.  There are times when public and political opinion are contrary to principle, which is why we have a Constitution which enumerates gov't powers and presumes certain rights.  A major reason for this was to prevent a tyranny of the majority.  > >> No arguments against RKBA can withstand scientific scrutiny. > >	They don't have to. Like so many other things, the issue >	is one of -perception- rather than boring statistics. >	Every time some young innocent is gunned-down in a drive >	by, every time some kid is murdered for a jacket, every >	time a store clerk is executed for three dollars in change, >	every time some moron kills his wife because she took the >	last beer from the fridge, every time someone hears a 'bang' >	in the night .... the RKBA dies. The stats are not all *that* >	clearly behind firearms - the protection factor does not >	strongly outweigh the mindless mayhem factor. Given society >	as we now experience it - it seems safer to get rid of >	as many guns as possible. That may be an error, but enough >	active voters believe in that course.   This is exactly why law should be based on reasoned thought, not immediate perception.  Of course, it doesn't always work that way. Fortunately, while there are no guarantees, logic sometimes does prevail.  And, if not, there are still means for correction.   As far as "enough active voters" are concerned, that is still an open question until the vote is made.  > >> How do you intend to 'silence' RKBA supporters? > >	Talk all you want. Talk about the "good old days" when >	you used to own firearms. After a while, such talk will >	take on the character of war stories ... and no one will >	be very interested anymore.  You portray a possible scenario for the future.  But, how will you silence RKBA supporters right now?  As long as public debate is allowed, such debate will continue. If we allow public debate to be restricted or denied, then we will get a gov't we deserve.