🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1nlbd4INN3oq@access.digex.com> dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey) writes:
>
>If you accept that prevention of deaths (we can say innocent 
>deaths or not...) is a correct and justifiable reason for 
>taking away access to something (guns for example) then how
>would you defend the availability of alchohol to the public?

I think the twenty-first amendment settled that argument.

>Look at drunk driving deaths and tell me why guns should go, 
>but booze should not?  In fact, maybe we should do the booze
>first?
>

Every time this gun argument crops, I haul out my copy of the U.S.
Constitution and re-read Amendment II. It hasn't changed in over 200
years:

	A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
	free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
	shall not be infringed.

My interpretation of this has always been a little narrow.
Grammatically, a comma can denote a parenthetical statement or phrase.
Applying that to the second amendment you get:

	 A well regulated Militia, ..., shall not be infringed.

This has been the basis for my view on gun control. As long as the
state or federal government does nothing to infringe on the ability of
the people to maintain a Militia, the control of the use, sale, or
distribution of firearms is constitutional. It is then up to us,
through our laws, to determine what controls our society wants to
place on firearms, if any.

That being said, I've always wondered why there is such a strong
opposition to the control of such hazardous material. BATF has
licensing requirements on the use high explosives, which could be
construed as a necessary firearm for a Militia, without major
objections from the chemicals industry. Why can't I, Joe Citizen, keep
my own personal cache of C-4 just in case I am called to defend my
country against an enemy? Because C-4 is just too dangerous to be left
lying around. I think the same should go for firearms.

On the other hand firearms have other uses other than destroying human
life: They can be used to provide food, or as enjoyable sport (I've
bagged many a target in my youth), or as art (some guns are
*beautiful*; if you've never handled a well-made firearm, you've
missed the opportunity to see mankind at its industrial best). 

The conrol of prescription drugs is analogous to gun control. The FDA
has strict guidelines about who can prescribe drugs, who can sell
them, who can make them, and who can buy them. On the whole (there are
some notable exceptions), availability is not a problem.

IMHO, guns should be regulated. Anyone who owns a gun should be able
to prove that he or she 1) knows how to use it properly, 2) will use
it for solely legitimate purposes, and 3) will not allow it to be used
in an unsafe manner by any other person. This is not unreasonable. It
does not require a massive bureacracy or expensive regulation.
(Although, in all honesty, it will probably lead to it anyway :-( ) 

Ken
-- 
--
The meaning of life (v.42):
	Be happy, try not hurt others, and hope that you'll fall in love.