You say (and correct me if I'm misquoting) that gun control laws as described by
Jeroen infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
I reply:
A. I'm confused by law-abiding citizens who want to have a right to break the law.
I.e., if a gun control law is passed, and you don't like it, do you think you have a
right to ignore it? If you do, aren't you not being law-abiding anymore?
B. If you argue that you have a basic right to own a gun due to the Second Amendment,
and a law banning or curtailing owning guns infringes on that right, there are two
problems, as I see it:
1. The Supreme Court does not appear to agree ... and I saw your study of their
decisions as cited by someone else, which seemed to me to amount to a waving of hands
and saying "Oh, they're all just lawyers, anyway." Oh, and "Everyone else agrees with
me." :)
2. In the specific case of gun control laws in the Netherlands, Jeroen may not have a
_right_ to own a gun outlined in _his_ constitution, in which case the laws he
described do not infringe on his _right_ to own a gun. He has _no such right_. It
cannot _be_ infringed upon because it does not exist. This is based on conjecture on
my part -- I know nothing about the constitution of the Netherlands.
Hope that's clearer.
Patrick Sweeney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
