[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Guns & the Bill of Rights

[Kathryn Cawte]

> 
> Me -
> 
> Well I was taught that there is doubt about exactly what the writers
> meant when they said 'right to bear arms' anyway, but I don't know 
> if that's right.
 
bboy_mn:
Well, people today have doubts about the right to keep and bear arms,
but the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they
wrote the Bill of Rights, and those reasons are just as valid if not
more valid today than they were back then. I think there is a greater
likelihood today for what they were guarding against to occur.
<snip>
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms-
"II. 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."
   <snip>
Me -

And this is why I said there is debate over what they meant. 'a well and
regulated militia' is not what America has today, what it has is individuals
who out of fear or violence or criminal intent own guns. People do not by
and large own guns to protect themselves from the government, they own them
to protect themselves from 'them'. Them being the shadowy fear of someone
out to cause violence and destruction. I was taught that several
constitutional scholars have suggested that this clause means the right to
bear arms as part of a militia (ie to serve in an army) not the right for
everyone to own guns. My point though was not that it was written to promote
hunting,my point was that when it was written guns were a necessary part of
life, they are not now. Times change and rules have to change with them, no
one should rigidly stick to something written 200 years ago just because it
s seen as unalterable. When the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were
written no one could have envisaged the technology that we have now, just as
no one could have envisaged the society that we have now. As I said before
why is one part of it deemed more sacred than others. It *is* the Bill of
Rights that says 'All men are created equal' isn't it? Because when that was
written, like I said before, it meant all white men. We have adapted it to
mean that which is acceptable by today's society, why not do this for guns?
Besides as you yourself admitted, assuming it does mean what people take it
to mean, ownership of weapons for all, that right already has been infringed
 So it's not a case of sticking to the right to bear arms it is merely a
question of where the line should be drawn.

bboy_mn said

Do you think the people living in Iraq under Saddam Hussian had the
right to keep and bear arms,  
<snipped various other examples>

Actually large numbers of people in Iraq had guns, same for most of the rest
of your examples. I understand your point but I think it's wrong because
there really is no need for individuals to own guns. If George Bush (for
example) decided to suspend democracy and appoint himself lord high poobah
then one of two things would happen. (oversmplified I know) 1)The majority
of the armed forces would support him in which case there is not much that
most private individuals could do or 2) they wouldn't and they'd shoot him
themselves. Dictators don't rule by holding all the weapons, they rule by
fear. They rule by making sure that people know that if they just keep their
heads down and their mouths shut they will survive and if they don't they'll
never be seen again. And while standing up to be counted might be the moral
thing to do most people won't because their priorities are protecting
themselves and their families.

And as for ownership of weapons being the only way to safeguard your freedom
.... Ghandi didn't seem to need guns, Martin Luthor King (not *as*clear cut
since there were civil rights groups who promoted violent means) didn't use
guns. Michael Moore did try making this arguement in his documentary but the
idiot he was talking to hadn't actually heard of ghandi so the point fell
somewhat flat.

K
PS I think I may have spellt Ghandi wrong but at least I did so consistently.