From: Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 03:40:26 +0800
To: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Subject: Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199711012037.OAA01218@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.971102181317.414B-100000@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> >  Your constitution says you can own and carry
> > guns; your politicians and law enforcement increasingly say that you
> > can not.  Your response to my saying that is that _I_ don't understand
> > the constitution?
> 
> No, my responce is prove your assertions. Explain to me why you believe
> these are valid views and why they provide a more usable environment for
> understanding what is going on then others.

What do you want proven? That the second ammendment is absolute? Even if 
one does not believe that (I personally do from a simple libertarian 
point of view rather than that of a constitutionalist) then surely the 
level of infringement of 2nd ammendment rights currently seen must 
indicate to you a validity of the statement "Congress either doesn`t 
understand or ignores the constitution".

> > The point was there were way less laws, and few were telling their
> > neighbours what they could think.
> 
> Really? What was the law count say in 1865 versus 1965? 1897 v 1997?

We really don`t need a "law count", more new laws are passed than old 
ones are repealed or fall into disuse. Therefore there is an increasing 
law count, of course a lot of laws have counter-laws that contradict them 
but this does not reduce the law count, infact it effectively increases 
it by making there a larger number of things for which one can be 
convicted of breaking the law.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"