[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[Randy Arabie]

On Monday,  2 December 2002 at 20:17:31 -0700, Timothy C. Klein <teece at silverklein.net> wrote:

<---SNIP--->

> Yes, a gun can be used as a hobby.  But I don't think it affects my
> argument one bit.  If the goal is to become as effective at pointing
> something, and getting the imaginary ray of your pointed device to hit
> some target, there are plenty of ways to do it *without* making a
> lethal weapon.  The appeal of gun, even for those that seem to do
> nothing but target shoot, often (but not always), is the lethality of
> the gun.  That's why my dad has his .44 and his .357.  There is a reason
> he doesn't shoot pellet guns.  I suspect for many (most?) gun owners,
> that is a big motivation, too:  the destructive power.

Either way, it really doesn't matter what anyone believes a gun is/was 
invented or manufactured for.  And, it doesn't matter why a person 
chooses to own one.  The fact is, gun ownership is a protected right.

<---SNIP--->

> > The degree (if any) of imperfection in the Constitution is certainly
> > debatable, but until amended, it stands as the final authority on what the
> > U.S. govt. can and cannot do. In matters of whether the Feds can prohibit
> > or require something, it is the final authority.
> 
> True, I wasn't saying that we should ignore it.  But if someone argues
> that the Constitution is wrong, I say one who feels that the
> Constitution is correct  must argue why the Constitution is *right.*  It
> is not simply enough to point to the Constitution and say 'look see, it
> says.'  I am not accusing you of that, but many ardent defenders of the
> Second Amendment do nothing more than that.  For their argument to be
> effective, at least in my mind, you have argue why the Constitution is
> correct.

That's fine for purposes of debate.  However, that isn't the way Constitutional
law works.  The Constitution is *right* until it is amended or the specific 
provision in question is overturned via a Supreme Court Ruling. Just as an 
individual is "innocent until proven guilty", the Constitution is right until 
proven wrong.  The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not the defendant.
-- 
Allons Rouler!
        
Randy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://cluedenver.org/pipermail/clue-talk/attachments/20021202/02374f75/attachment.bin