BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
===================
That there are subcultures that don't know how to properly exercise
our
rights, does not mean that the rest of us should be deprived of being
able to exercise those rights ourselves.
==================

Your argument is seductively simple, but it flies in the face of most
laws that are passed to restrict your actions.

Let's take a very simple example: lawn darts (at least that's what I
think those "toys" were called). After some period of use, it became
clear that these darts presented a serious danger to people using
them
in recreational activities in backyards and on picnics (that is,
people
ended up getting them stuck in their skulls).

The darts were subsequently taken off the shelves at your local
ToysRUs
and, as far as I know, are no longer avalable for sale. Using your
logic, we should all be outraged that, because of a few careless
people, we've been denied the right to toss lethal darts in the air
at
our mother-in-law's picnic.

That's the nature of laws in a civilized society -- the "people"
decide
that certain activities, products, whatever, do more harm to the
"greater good" than it's worth. IMHO, guns fit into that category.

Many of you Americans clearly disagree. As you can. But as you
disagree, it might be useul to examine how much ownership of guns
parallels ownership of lawn darts. In both cases, innocent people are
injured and die due to accidents. Had the lawn darts/guns not been
lying around, that misery could have been avoided.

frtzw906

Please understand frtwz that I am not advocating the ownership of
assault weapons or for that matter lawn darts. I am advocating the
resposible exercise of our Constitutionally protected rights. The
Constitutions does not say anything about lawn darts, though I agree
that they are not needed at your mother-in-laws picnic, being the
hazard that they are known to be and causing more harm to the greater
good than they are worth.

Guns are in a different category completely. Granted if taken to your
mother-in-laws picnic, I do not know what good they would be used for
depending on where the picnic is being held. If held in downtown NYC at
central park, there is probably no place to legally exrcise the
operation of firearms without creating a hazard for others. The
exercise of responsibility would say to not be popping them off in the
air. On the otherhand, if the picnic was out in the country, and you
wanted to do some target shooting, and everyone was aware of the target
zone, and watching out for the children, they could be totally
appropriate.

Personally I enjoy shooting a Black Powder muzzle loader, and have
participated in what are called Rendevous. During which we wear period
clothing, camp in teepees, and generally have a good time shooting and
whooping. No drugs or alcohol allowed. Wife and children welcome when
also dressed appropriately. Everyone seems to have a great time.

Now I doubt that my black powder single shot would be much good as a
military weapon, nor most of the deer rifles and shot guns owned by
Americans. I tend to aggree that originally the intent was to provide
an armed militia, but we have strayed far from that original. The
National Guard is actually suppose to fulfill that purpose now of home
defense, and it is disturbing to see them serving overseas.

The Idea of the weekend warriors is that they would not be inclined to
use there weapons on US citizens. In our history, and I mention my
friend William Schroeder at Kent State, this has happened only a few
times, and given the armed nature of the citizenry, any tyrant think
that he could would likely find some resistance. I would generally
expect that the military and the National Guard, at some point would
refuse to follow an illegal order, and would depose the tyrant, in as
much as all of them are citizens as well. The problem would arise if
foreign troops were imported to prop up the tyrant, such as blue helmet
UN troops, and then I expect there would be hell to pay. That is what
is behind the right to bear arms as I see it, IMHO. TnT