🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <21198@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes:
>People who are so inclined will steal whether or not they have access
>to handguns.  And don't kid yourself about the effectiveness of a ban;
>the criminals will be able to get them easily enough!  

An interesting argument.  But if they're illegal, (a) they won't be
manufactured on such a massive basis, and (b) *anyone* caught with one
will be jailed.  But the main counterargument is below..

> Look, sometimes it's NECESSARY to kill people.

Oh?  When?  "When it's kill or be killed."  That means someone else is
trying to kill you ... unnecessarily.  Screw that.

>Well, let's see.  Automobiles are responsible for a staggering amount
>of death and injury to innocent people....the statistics are 
>incontrovertible: cars are dangerous! 

Uh.... Can you figure out a way to carry a concealed automobile?

You're ignoring what your antagonist actually said, schmuck.

>Personal
>freedom does not justify putting Society at risk

Absolutely right.  It doesn't.  That's why we have traffic laws, and should
probably have much stricter ones (*especially* regarding DWUI).

>just say NO to cars!

I tried that, but they didn't listen.  Cars is pretty stupid.

>- If we outlaw
>-handguns, we will significantly reduce shooting deaths in
>-this country.
>
>Right, just like Prohibition got rid of alcohol and the current drug
>laws have cured drug abuse.

Actually... Consider this:

1)  England has gun control.

2)  There were about five gun related deaths in the entire COUNTRY
    last year.

Therefore,

3)  Either
	a) Gun control works,
    or
	b) the English couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.


>It doesn't mention rifles or shotguns either.  The second amendment
>speaks of the right to bear "arms", period.  Last time I checked, 
>handguns were "arms".   As for the Constitution not mentioning handguns
>*specifically*....there are LOTS of things that aren't mentioned.  That's
>why the ninth amendment is there.  Or did you stop at two?

According to a Supreme Court decision made about 60 years ago, long before
the whole "gun control" debate became what it is today, the right to bear
arms is a right held by the populace, but not by its members.  The right
for any individual or group to bear arms may be restricted by legislation
at any time.

You lovers-of-the-artificial-phallus like to ignore the first part of the
Second Amendment:

"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."

The Supreme Court's interpretation of this -- which has legal validity,
whereas mine, yours, and the NRA's do not -- is that the people-as-a-whole
have the right to maintain and arm a well-regulated militia; individuals
are not guaranteed the right to carry toys.

This is the *only* amendment in the Bill of Rights where the Founders took
care to specify their purpose in putting it there.  We may reasonably
believe that they wanted to clarify what it was *and*was*not* intended
for -- and it was *not* intended to let paranoids keep guns in their homes.

I hope this clarifies the issue.  I apologize to any who may be offended
by what they perceive as insults; I intended descriptive terms.  Ignoring
the burden of what you're arguing with *is* schmuckery; feeling you have
to have the right to have a gun because you have to protect yourself from
all the people who have guns because you insisted on keeping guns legal *is*
paranoia, and guns *are* surrogate dicks.

Happy October.

The Roach