Gun Control (my opinion)

John Bush jbush at POST.CIS.SMU.EDU
Tue Jul 30 11:10:08 MDT 1996


On Mon, 29 Jul 1996 William Thurber wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Papa Paul wrote:
>
>> Edward Dunai wrote:
>> < SNIP >
>> > IMO, the whole purpose of the Second Amendment is *not* to prevent
>> > crime  or to hunt or to target shoot but rather to provide yet another
>> check and  balance on the power of the Federal government.  I believe
>> that it was  intended as a means to ensure that the government would not
>> become tyrannical in nature, < SNIP >
>
>> Agreed.  And, with the recent bombings,  look for Schumar and others to
>> demand in even louder voices that we surrender the guns.
>>
>> Regards, PapaPaul
>
>
>I have always been curious about how you might interpret the meaning of the
>2nd ammndt in this way and accept the limits on civilian ownership of
>amongst others - nuclear arms?
>
>--Will

Well, how do we look at the first amendment.  Freedom of speech used to be
limitted to the spoken word, and freedom of the press was limited to the
printed word, because that was all we had.  As we added radio, TV, and now
the internet, they are also included in the definition of speech and
press.  I do not see why we treat arms--automatic weapons, bombs (nuclear or
otherwise)--differently.

This being said, one of the things built into our Constitution is the
ability to change it via an amendment.  I do not know too many people who
would not support a ban of these items in an amendment.  The problem I
have is that the Constitution has ben amended to limit these items by
judicial fiat--a bunch of old men in robes (and a couple of ladies now)
deciding what's best for all of use, since we don't get it anyway.  In my
not so humble opinion....



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list