Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure

Thomas Barclay wrote:

In light of Mr. Burger's follow-up post, let me also tender apologies
for posting in the "heat of the moment" and making some statements that
were somewhat out of line.  I intend only to correct a few mistakes of
fact in this forum--anyone who wishes to debate gun control or any
aspect thereof is encouraged to contact me via e-mail rather than on the
list.

> > As for prosperity, what nation believes this?  Since a Canadian
wrote
> > it, I assume that's a claim that all Canadians are either rich or at
> > least comfortably middle class.  Refutation is left as an exercise
for
> > the reader.
> 
> No the right to prosperity is the right (I think) that you Yanks have
> in your Constitution - the right to pursue wealth through endeavour.

Not in my pocket copy of the Constitution.  

> You (I believe) call this the right to be free. Or at least it is
> subsumed under that (life liberty and happiness).

Oh, the "inalienable rights of man" "Life, Libertry and the Pursuit of
Happiness".  Lovely poetry, but not legally binding.  See, those are in
our Declaration of Independance.  Which isn't part of the
Constitution--that term, in US parlance, refers to a seperate document
entirely.
 
> hurting people, yes. Do guns? I've heard of people using them as
> hammers, but that's just plain dumb.

I have shot off several thousand rounds of ammunition, which I derived
pleasure from (I like shooting) without yet injuring anyone in any way
shape or form.	One can shoot at targets or at animals.

> secured) might be involved in a tradgedy. Nor do I delude myself that
> such a firearm would keep me safe from some gov't misdeeds - as the

I've never indicated I did--besides, a revolutionary good enough to
suceed should be able to arm himself from his enemy's arsenals.

John M. Atkinson