On 2 Aug 2004 09:24:21 -0700, (Harry Conover) wrote:

Adam Smith wrote in message ...
I just read the entire text of this post, and I personally find the
proposed law a little too restrictive for some areas of the country, but
otherwise quite reasonable and a step in the right direction at least.
The 2nd amendment is intended to allow citizens to protect themselves
and their family in the event of a hostile attack on their person or B&E
of their home. It's a law to allow a family home or a person at risk of
attack to have a conventional non-combat firearm, primarily for self
defense. At the time, people also hunted for food, which can also be
accomplished with civilian weaponry.

I do not believe the writers of the second amendment ever dreamed of men
gunning down deer with AK-47s for sport, 12 year olds peppering each
other in city streets with Mac-10s or men wishing to defend their home
with semi-auto shotguns loaded with flechette rounds or incendiaries, or
whatever other perverse **** is out there.

I personally feel that a serious assement of some sort is needed,
because the right to bear arms is being grossly abused.

-Adam

Adam, don't you realize that a well aimed shot from a muzzle loader
can be equally as effective as the fire power of any semi-automatic
weapon. (The problem is is that relatively few people today are
excellent marksmen.)

Then too, the Framers of the Constition believed that the real risks
stemmed from a government that had abandoned the will of the people
and became too powerful.

Ask yourself this question: What weapons are in use by the government
forces today, and what weapons would be required today to neutralize
this advantage?

I doubt that you would conclude that a .50-Cal. muzzle loader would be
adequate to even stand a chance, or a bolt action rifle either for
that matter.

These are the issues that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution
addresses, like it or not!

Also, realize that one of the first actions of a totalitarian regime
is to effectively disarm any opposition. That, in itelf, it a concept
that is to me more frightening than any risks associated with
individual gun ownership.

Harry C.


http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm

Indeed Harry is quite right.

And to answer the first sentence in Adams post...Rights are not
regionally dependant, least of all Constitutional ones. Or is ok to
stand on a soapbox in San Francisco, but not in Portland?

"you are now entering Sector 7. Please leave your Bibles,periodicals
and other printed materials or computer media at the Censors Desk for
inspection"

Hummm I didnt notice if Adam was posting from Canada or the UK, where
censorship is indeed rampant and legal.....

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke