Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:46:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
199 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz answers:
> The reason for opposition of gun registry comes down to what the purpose
> of the 2nd amendment is presumed to be, that of assuring that the
> populace can be armed as a defence against an out of control government
> (an understanding which I agree with, unlikely as it seems that it would
> ever occur (1)). The problem with gun registration is that then the
> government knows where all the guns (supposedly) are when they decide to
> start depriving us of our rights and start confiscating guns.
Okay, that makes sense. My error was that I was perceiving an analogy between
gun registration and, for instance, dog licensing or car registration. The
difference, if I understand it now, is that the seizure of dogs or cars: A)
doesn’t impinge upon Constitutionally enumerated rights; and B) doesn’t
eliminate one’s ability to defend oneself against an armed government.
One would hope, as you mention, that the government-amok scenario wouldn’t
develop too widely, and that such incidents as Ruby Ridge and Waco are fairly
isolated.
All I can say is, when the time comes, I’ll be sure to have my dog and car at
my side! 8^)
Thanks for the insight!
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) The reason for opposition of gun registry comes down to what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is presumed to be, that of assuring that the populace can be armed as a defence against an out of control government (an understanding which I agree (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
