🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <83nupr$bio$1@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>,
  "Anarchometer" <anarchometer@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Having to register a gun does not mean that you cannot own it. It
simply
> >means that there is a better chance of keeping guns out of the wrong
> >hands. Such an ability is also in the interest of the security of a
free
> >state, don't you think?
>
> No. Californians were told that they could keep SKSs if they
registered
> them.
> The moment Gray Davis took over as governor, he immediately ordered
the
> confiscation of SKSs. We don't believe assholes who say they "only"
want
> registration. YOU might "only" want registration, but the guys in
power will
> use
> that piece of paper to CONFISCATE. The NRA has been saying that for
years,
> and you pricks on the left have insisted you would never go so far as
> actually
> confiscating guns. Gray Davis EXPOSED your phony motives once and for
all!


Thanks for your kind words. It is nice to see that you are so civil
about discussions. I said nothing about confiscating guns, but you are
too interested in branding me a leftist liberal to notice that. I have
no problem with private citizens owning whatever guns they want to as
long as they don't use it to break the law; but I don't like the fact
that as many as 70% of people trying to get guns under the rubric of the
Second Amendment are convicted or indicted felons.

>
> >Again, having a right does not exonerate people from responsibility.
> >Even though we have a right to free speech, we cannot say whatever we
> >please,>>
>
> Don't you even see the bleeding   C O N T R A D I C T I O N    in your
> own sentences???

No. I don't. Everyone knows that totally unrestricted "free" speech
although it is mentioned in the First Amendment, is rarely completely
supported by legal decisions.

>
>  or else there would not be libel and slander laws. (Unless you
> >think those laws are unconstitutional.)
>
> >There should be no law preventing a law-abiding citizen from owning a
> >gun. But that is different from requriring a law-abiding citizen to
> >register a gun.
>


> There is NO provision for registration in the constitution. If you
insist on
> calling "regulation of the militia" justification for registration,
then
> women
> wouldn't be allowed to have guns, because the law (Title 10) defining
the
> composition of the militia doesn't include women. Obviously women have
> the same right to own a firearm as a man does, therefore any argument
> based on that "regulated militia" crap is bogus, unless you say all
women
> must turn in their guns.
>

We have been over what "well regulated" means, so I don't see why you
are still arguing about it. Even if "well regulated" means "operating
smoothly," as others have argued, you still have to explain why that
same militia is mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, under the power of
the Congress. Gun owners argue that if you have a freedom, some will
abuse it. Well, if you have a governmental power, some will abuse *that*
too, but it doesn't negate its usefulness. I think you're being
inconsistent with your accusations of abuse of power.

>

--
Leroy Gonzalez
leroyg@my-deja.com


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.