From: [o--iv--r] at [cs.unc.edu] (Bill Oliver)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Political Use of Gun Control : Intro  (Was Re: Fun with Guns)
Date: 14 Jun 1995 12:05:59 -0400

In article <3rmopp$[9--7] at [info.usuhs.mil]>, D. Y. <[REDACTED] at [info.usuhs.mil]> wrote:
>
>What is interesting here is that everyone is giving examples and good
>arguments, but so far, I have not seen anyone explain just *Why* the
>second amendment (right to bear arms) is in such a promenent place.
>The founding fathers of the United States were well educated, and most
>certainly knew the workings of rhetoric.  So there had to be some
>reason for organizing the bill of rights with Freedom of Speech, of
>the press, assembly, religion, first, right to bear arms second, and
>prohibition of quartering troops third.
>


I generally do not tend to get involved in gun control debates.  However,
I get upset when gun-control enthusiasts stereotype those who
support second amendment freedoms as stupid, paranoid, violent people who
have no intellectual reasoning behind their position.  This is
profoundly offensive, bigoted, and fundamentally incorrect.

Since someone in this group has requested an historical approach
to the gun control debate, I am posting this set of references
which I wrote up some years ago for a gun control debate which
broke out in soc.men.  This posting is at least 10 years old, and
reflects the times -- Native Americans are referred to as American
Indians, and African-Americans as black Americans.  I do not wish
to offend; this was written while those terms were still politically
correct.  

I have tried to edit out the parts of the posting that were 
specific to that debate.  However, if you see reference to a 
Mr. Nilges, this was the person to whom I was replying.

This section on the political philosopy of gun control is in turn
divided into four sections.  The first provides a short look at the 
classical background of republicanism and provides an introduction to what
the philosphers who influenced the founding of this nation felt about the
control of arms.  It will also give examples of the absolutist
philosophers who more closely reflect Mr. Nilges position.

The second section is an examination of the actual establishment of the
Second Amendment, and the political thought involved, with an emphasis on
the debate surrounding its ratification.

The third is an examination of the use of firearms control laws by the
government for specific policy objectives.  This is in turn divided into 
four parts -- the introduction and enumeration of political functions of
gun control, examples from the world outside the US,
the use of gun control laws for political purposes in the US (specifically
to maintain the subservience of blacks), and a list of references.

Finally, the fourth part is my conclusion, which attempts to convice that,
in fact, there are those of us who oppose restrictive firearms laws who do
not do so because we want to kill everybody, but because of specific, and
reasonable political philosophy.

Bill Oliver