Re: Property Rights
Fri, 28 May 1999 05:44:04 -0700 (PDT)

Joe E. Dees [] wrote:
>Lemme get this straight: you WANT the above people to have

Just like the typical anti-gunner, I ask a direct question, you ignore it. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that the Federal government can ban gun possession (or nuclear weapons possession, for that matter) by any of these groups?

Answer: it doesn't. The Federal government cannot legally pass any law restricting possession of weapons of any kind. State governments could, at least prior to the 14th Amendment, since when it's been a more open question.

Whether or not I want them to have guns is irrelevant; the Federal government has no legal power to prevent them. None. State governments may or may not, but they're currently relaxing gun laws while the Feds are strengthening theirs. Odd that, isn't it?

>Then yours would definitely be taken away,

See Joe, just like the typical anti-gunner you start off saying you'll only ban gun ownership for criminals and children, and then we discover that opposing your laws will also be taken as grounds for being disarmed. What was that about our silly "slippery slope" argument?

>because you
>are clearly one deranged fuckwad!

Well, as they say, it takes one to know one, eh Joe? BTW, I don't own any guns; while I'm seriously thinking of leaving soon -- partly because I'm fed up with the violence here -- I'm probably in the Benighted Kingdom for another year or two, and the slippery slope of disarmament is almost complete over here, from "we have to register guns to reduce crime rates" (actually so they could confiscate guns from commies come a revolution, but that wasn't publically acknowledged 'til decades later) to banning almost everything.

That said, I'm about to pick up an air assault rifle and probably a couple of other airguns before they ban them too; I have to admit, I find creeping through woods shooting at people with a fully-automatic air rifle a lot more fun than shooting paper targets with a bolt-action .30 caliber. Shame they're not much good for self-defence.

>You took leave of your reason behind long ago;

You projecting again, Joe?

>other countries
>haven't had 2nd Amendments, so you can't in good conscience
>use them as feasible models

Huh, what? You think the Feds will suddenly slap their foreheads, say "Oh damn, we forgot the 2nd Amendment, we'd better repeal all those gun laws" and that will be that? They're ignoring it, just as they have been for decades now, and they will continue to do so.

>"Promote the general welfare" basically means to maximize the
>perpetuation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness within the
>general populace;

Bzzzzt... wrong, try again.

>I note that the first of these is life, which a bullet
>to the head or heart irretrievably abridges.

Indeed. That's why we want to give people the tools they need to defend themselves against violent criminals. Try living in a disarmed country for a while, Joe, and you'll understand why gun ownership is so important.