Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 10:32:23 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb> To: fpawlak@execpc.com (Frank Pawlak) Cc: drifter@stratos.net, fpawlak@execpc.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Does it's true? Message-ID: <199806281732.KAA15832@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <980627174601.ZM27818@darkstar.connect.com> from Frank Pawlak at "Jun 27, 98 05:46:01 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Frank Pawlak wrote: > It is interesting that you did an in-depth analysis of my analogy. I was > taking neither of the positions arrived at in your deduction. The is no > question about the issue of personification of guns in the US. The citizens > have been armed to the teeth since the Revolutionary War. Gun possession is > covered by the Constitution. So far all well and good. based upon reading madison, jefferson and other FF's (founding fathers), the second amendment to the constitution was enacted in order to guarantee the citizentry's ability to oppose a tyrannical government, and thereby prevent that government from forming. ownership of small arms is insufficient for the task. if one embraces the purpose of the second amendment, rather then just the language, we must allow the citizentry to own heavy weapons. no one that i know of advocates this. what would it have availed the chinese students to have small arms in tianamen (sp) square. it would not have forestalled action by the gov't. the narrow reading of the second amendment leaves us with the high death rate by shooting that we have in the US without the means to effectively oppose the govt. the worst of both. ugh. jmb To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806281732.KAA15832>