How to Read the Second Amendment
aaron greewnood
Ratified December 15, 1791
Amendment II
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Changing a few words.
A well-read congress, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
The english of the Second Amendment is often hard to understand for
modern Americans. I have found that to replace regulated with read,
militia with congress, bear arms with read books makes it clear that
'A well-regulated militia ... is the reason for the people's right
to keep and bear arms. The Founders make it clear that this is an
individual right no matter what Law School Professors say. They
are wrong just like the ACLU is wrong. It is nothing more than
intellectual conceit on their part a sort of legal intellecutal
masterbation if you will.
The anti-RKBA types site stats on crime for their opposition to
the Second Amendment. They do not discuss the foundation on which
the Amendment stands. They know they would have no argument at
all if they did. I believe that "Law Professors" and others who
"redefine" the Second Amendment do so not out of true scholarship
but out of the disease know as "political correctness". It is
time to let these people know in clear terms they will not get
their way. That they are wrong and that they are in violation
of the Bill Of Rights for trying to infringe on our Rights.
In a way they are traitors. The quotes of our Founders presented
by Dennis R. Hilton are appended to this post.
I would like to see the anti-Right To Keep and Bear Arms types
argue against the Founders.
Dennis R. Hilton <DRHi...@Kaiwan.com> wrote:
>Those who try to argue that there is no individual RKBA, by playing
>games with the 2nd, must do so outside of proper context. The 2nd
>wasn't written that long ago; we know very very much about those
>who wrote it. Let's ask them:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
in government." --- Thomas Jefferson
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are
the Peoples' Liberty's Teeth." -- George Washington
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able
may have a gun."
--- Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of
the Constitution
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body,
it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games
played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for
the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore
be the constant companion of your walks." --- Thomas Jefferson
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before
them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which
must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert
their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are
confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right
to keep and bear their private arms."
--- Trence Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the
Federal Constitution", under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in
the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789
"Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower house;
these altogether respect personal liberty..."
--- Senator William Grayson of Virginia in a letter to Patrick Henry
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty... Whenever
Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people,
they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army
upon their ruins."
--- Rep Elbridge Gerry, Mass., I Annals of Congress at 750, 8/17/1789
"It's the misfortune of all Countries, that they sometimes lie under
a unhappy necessity to defend themselves by Arms against the ambition
of their Governors, and to fight for what's their own. If those in
government are headless of reason, the people must patiently submit
to Bondage, or stand upon their own Defence; which if they are enabled
to do, they shall never be put upon it, but their Swords may grow
rusty in their hands; for that Nation is surest to live in Peace, that
is most capable of making War; and a Man that hath a Sword by his
side, shall have least occasion to make use of it."
--- John Trenchard and Walter Moyle
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for
a few public officials."
--- George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people
always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to
use them."
--- Richard Henry Lee writing in letters from the Federal
Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone
who approaches the jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitable
ruined." --- Patrick Henry
"Without either the first or second amendment, we would have no
liberty; the first allows us to find out what's happening, the
second allows us to do something about it! The second will be taken
away first, followed by the first and then the rest of our freedoms."
--- Andrew Ford
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as
they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in
America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole
body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any body
of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United
States."
--- Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principals of the
Federal Constitution
"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave
them." --- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and
every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of
an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands
of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God
it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--- Trench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights
of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who
are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
--- Samuel Adams
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
--- Thomas Jefferson, proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776,
1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334
--
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms
is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
- 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
DENNIS M. CROCKER
: (anti-gun people) In a way they are traitors.
: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
: bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
: in government." --- Thomas Jefferson
Aaron, it is impossible for the anti-gun nuts to argue their case when
presented with the writings of the founding fathers. Their attempts to
lie and deceive the American public are revealed for all to see. I have
never seen a better rebutal. Thanks.
Dennis Crocker
: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone
Lloyd Sargent
(DENNIS M. CROCKER) wrote:
> aaron greewnood (star...@galaxy.ucr.edu) wrote:
> : (anti-gun people) In a way they are traitors.
>
> : "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
> : bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
> : in government." --- Thomas Jefferson
>
> Aaron, it is impossible for the anti-gun nuts to argue their case when
> presented with the writings of the founding fathers. Their attempts to
> lie and deceive the American public are revealed for all to see. I have
> never seen a better rebutal. Thanks.
> Dennis Crocker
>
Keep your guns. We'll just outlaw bullets.
<grin>
BTW, you might want to think about who and why Jefferson made this
statement. At the time he made it NO country had outlawed guns (hell, they
weren't even standardized!) - unless what he was talking about was the
States keeping their militias (they were worried about losing those to a
"national army").
Note: Jefferson said "people" not "individual". BIG difference, though you
may not think so.
Nosy
Note followups OUT of alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
and misc.legal.
<In article <canna-12129...@slip225.bga.com> ca...@bga.com (Lloyd Sargent) writes:
< In article <3cfvp5$3...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>, dcro...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu
< (DENNIS M. CROCKER) wrote:
< > aaron greewnood (star...@galaxy.ucr.edu) wrote:
< > : (anti-gun people) In a way they are traitors.
< >
< > : "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
< > : bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
< > : in government." --- Thomas Jefferson
< >
< > Aaron, it is impossible for the anti-gun nuts to argue their case when
< > presented with the writings of the founding fathers. Their attempts to
< > lie and deceive the American public are revealed for all to see. I have
< > never seen a better rebutal. Thanks.
< > Dennis Crocker
< >
< Keep your guns. We'll just outlaw bullets.
< <grin>
That's nice. Many people cast their own bullets. I'm sure
they'll be able to supply others...
<grin>
Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me how many people
know nothing about this subject, but feel obliged
to display that lack anyhow.
< BTW, you might want to think about who and why Jefferson made this
< statement.
Done. He feared a too-strong central government, for one
thing, that might run roughshod over the people.
< At the time he made it NO country had outlawed guns
False. The Tokugawa Shogunate had banned them over 125
years before the Constitution.
Various European princelings had attempted to keep them
out of the hands of "rabble"....that's "the common people".
<(hell, they weren't even standardized!)
Wrong. Firearms had been standerized for at least
a century at the signing of the Constitution in caliber,
with armies issueing paper cartridges containing standard-
sized musket balls and a measured amount of powder.
Breechloading rifles and multiple-barreled firearms
had been experimented with; the British issued a limited
number of breechloading rifles to soldiers during the
US revolution.
HINT: What are "Charleville" and "Brown Bess" muskets?
<- unless what he was talking about was the
<States keeping their militias (they were worried about losing those to a
<"national army").
Lots of folks can and will provide quotes showing this
statement is wrong.
<Note: Jefferson said "people" not "individual". BIG difference, though you
<may not think so.
Uh huh. So the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to individuals,
either? How about the 5th?
James S. Rustad
>In article <3cfvp5$3...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>, dcro...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu
>(DENNIS M. CROCKER) wrote:
>> aaron greewnood (star...@galaxy.ucr.edu) wrote:
>> : "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
>> : bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
>> : in government." --- Thomas Jefferson
>Note: Jefferson said "people" not "individual". BIG difference, though you
>may not think so.
Might be interesting for you to explain why "the people" indicates some
sort of group and not "individual[s]" given that an important document written
at about the same time seem to use "the people" to refer to individuals?
James S. Rustad | "A well regulated militia being necessary
NRA Life Member | to the security of a free State, the right
Libertarian Party | of the people to keep and bear Arms shall
of Wisconsin | not be infringed."
Executive Committee |
Member-at-large | ------DON'T TREAD ON ME------
Thomas Rich Schwerdt
Please reread the 2nd amendment. I'm always so surprised as to what lengths
control freaks will go to to avoid comprehending a rather straightforward
sentence. Please note the portion "to keep and bear arms." There is
no specific mention of guns, rather the broader phrase "arms" is used,
which would include guns, powder, bullets, cartridges, cannon, and
other munitions. Just so that you don't claim that current useage is
different, compare this with the current trade blockade of all arms
from China to the US. In this case, the President has decided that "arms"
includes AT LEAST guns, ammuniton, and even airguns.
-Tom the Melaniephile
Lloyd Sargent
Because English grammar wasn't set in stone like it is today (or rather as
people would like it to be). Why is it that people "noun" verbs? Use "I"
instead of "me" (my pet peeve).
Lloyd
"Lifetime member of the ACLU. Okay, just year-to-year member."
Lloyd Sargent
Rich Schwerdt) wrote:
Ok, then by your definition, arms ALSO includes grenades, TOW missiles,
rocket launchers of various sizes and shapes and nuclear warheads. Or are
you saying that "arms" are limited by size, shape and destructive power?
Does your concept of arms allow me to sell them to ANYONE? Or are you
saying that the U.S. has MORE jurisdiction OUTSIDE of its borders than
within? We can stop kids in Bejing from getting Saturday Night Specials
but not the ones in Peoria?
Or are you saying that ONLY the arms that existed AT THAT TIME are what
they meant?
Lloyd
"No one was ever killed by a bullet that didn't come from a gun"
Dan Day
>
>Ok, then by your definition, arms ALSO includes grenades, TOW missiles,
>rocket launchers of various sizes and shapes and nuclear warheads. Or are
>you saying that "arms" are limited by size, shape and destructive power?
No, "arms" includes all weapons. The term is clear. What's the problem?
>Does your concept of arms allow me to sell them to ANYONE? Or are you
>saying that the U.S. has MORE jurisdiction OUTSIDE of its borders than
>within? We can stop kids in Bejing from getting Saturday Night Specials
>but not the ones in Peoria?
I see the Constitution of the United States is not required reading
any more. Yes, Lloyd, that's exactly right -- the US *does* have "MORE
jurisdiction OUTSIDE of its borders than within". Read Article I
Section 8 sometime, with special attention to clause 3.
>Or are you saying that ONLY the arms that existed AT THAT TIME are what
>they meant?
Nope, they meant *all* arms. Why do you find this ludicrous? You might
find my following essay enlightening:
#####
Subject: Yes, 2nd amendment protects nukes
People often ask, "well, if the second amendment to the US Constitution
protects the private ownership of arms, then does that mean you have
the right to own a nuclear weapon?"
Most respondents approach this issue with something to the effect that this
can be resolved by interpreting "arms" as meaning "personal arms" (i.e.
those which can be carried and used by an individual against another
individual).
However, I think this misses the point. First, the writings of the
people who wrote and ratified the second amendment give the clear
impression that they meant *all* arms, including cannon and privateer
ships. Second, it's as wrong to "creatively interpret" the second
amendment in order to say that these days it should apply only to
personal arms as it is to say that it now applies only to the National
Guard, or even to say that it's entirely outmoded and can be totally
ignored. Any of these is an arbitrary selective interpretation, and
all are equally unsupportable, as would be any attempt to limit the first
amendment protection of free speech only to, say, distribution methods
reaching only a limited number of people.
In short, I think the proper approach is to say that yes, the second
amendment was written to protect all arms, and thus nuclear weapons are
indeed covered by it. Now before anyone has a heart attack, let me
point out that I, too, think it is a good idea that individuals not
own nuclear weapons.
So what's the solution? Why, to follow the procedure that the
Constitution itself provides for modifying a provision of the
Constitution to adapt to changing times -- amend it following the
procedures in Article V. The people who wrote the constitution did not
intend for it to be selectively interpreted in order to fit changing
conditions. They planned that if conditions *did* change enough to
warrant an alteration in the provisions of the Constitution, it should
be done with due care and consideration, and only upon the agreement of
two thirds of each house of congress, and three fourths of the legislatures
of the states.
If times have indeed significantly changed since the day the second
amendment was ratified to protect the right to keep and bear all arms, then
it should be a simple matter to get the congress and the states to
agree upon the issue of which weapons are too dangerous for individual
ownership, and an amendment listing those arms exempted from the
protections of the second amendment should be ratified.
*This* is the proper way to react to changing times -- not arbitrary
decisions, whether they be personal, legislative, executive, or judicial.
The second amendment protects all arms. If you don't like that,
try to amend it. For some arms, it will be easy to get the majority
opinion required to ratify that exemption, and you will then have
the blessing of the Constitution itself. For other arms, you might
find it more difficult to acquire a consensus, and you'll have to
live with the fact that not enough people agree with you.
--
"Don't tread on me"
Alfred A. Hambidge, Jr.
>In article <3cisvl...@scarecrow.mke.ab.com>,
>jsru...@meqlan1.remnet.ab.com (James S. Rustad) wrote:
>
>> In article <canna-12129...@slip225.bga.com>, ca...@bga.com
>(Lloyd Sargent) says:
>> >In article <3cfvp5$3...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>, dcro...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu
>> >Note: Jefferson said "people" not "individual". BIG difference, though you
>> >may not think so.
>> Might be interesting for you to explain why "the people" indicates some
>> sort of group and not "individual[s]" given that an important document written
>> at about the same time seem to use "the people" to refer to individuals?
>Because English grammar wasn't set in stone like it is today (or rather as
>people would like it to be). Why is it that people "noun" verbs? Use "I"
>instead of "me" (my pet peeve).
So, then, by your reasoning, the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and
Tenth Amendments to the Constitution do not apply to individuals.
Al Hambidge, Jr. Standard disclaimers apply.
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature . . . and when the right
of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever,
prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of
destruction." - St. George Tucker, in his edition of Blackstone's _Commentaries_
James S. Rustad
>In article <3cj45g$j...@strauss.udel.edu>, py...@strauss.udel.edu (Thomas Rich Schwerdt) wrote:
>> >Keep your guns. We'll just outlaw bullets.
>> Please reread the 2nd amendment. I'm always so surprised as to what lengths
>> control freaks will go to to avoid comprehending a rather straightforward
>> sentence. Please note the portion "to keep and bear arms." There is
>> no specific mention of guns, rather the broader phrase "arms" is used,
>> which would include guns, powder, bullets, cartridges, cannon, and
>> other munitions. Just so that you don't claim that current useage is
>> different, compare this with the current trade blockade of all arms
>> from China to the US. In this case, the President has decided that "arms"
>> includes AT LEAST guns, ammuniton, and even airguns.
>Ok, then by your definition, arms ALSO includes grenades, TOW missiles,
>rocket launchers of various sizes and shapes and nuclear warheads. Or are
>you saying that "arms" are limited by size, shape and destructive power?
Now you're getting into a murkier area. I suspect that many (if not most)
people would define this as any weapon in common use by the military. This
definition is the one used by the Supreme Court in US v. Miller. Others might
try to expand this definition somewhat.
How does the definition of the word "arms" determine the meaning of "the right
to keep and bear arms" other than to define which devices the people have a right
to possess? Or are you saying that some "arms" are too powerful for the people to
have a right to own them and that the RKBA should be ignored because of this?
>Does your concept of arms allow me to sell them to ANYONE? Or are you
>saying that the U.S. has MORE jurisdiction OUTSIDE of its borders than
>within? We can stop kids in Bejing from getting Saturday Night Specials
>but not the ones in Peoria?
This would be consistent with US v. Verdugo-Urquidez in that those non-citizens
living outside US borders are not included within the Supreme Court's definition
of "the people". I don't think the US should have a foreign policy that includes
treating those not included in "the people" as possessing no rights. Do you?
>Or are you saying that ONLY the arms that existed AT THAT TIME are what
>they meant?
This is obviously wrong. Or would you argue that ONLY newspapers using printing
presses that have not advanced beyond 18th century technology have First
Amendment rights?
>"No one was ever killed by a bullet that didn't come from a gun"
"No one was ever killed by a man who never had a mother" gives us about as much
useful information.
Dennis O'Connor~
ca...@bga.com (Lloyd Sargent) writes:
Ah, yes, the "words mean anything I want them to" school of
"legal thought". Or is that "legally insane thought" ?
--
Dennis O'Connor doco...@sedona.intel.com
Intel i960(R) Microprocessor Division Solely responsible for what I do.
Dennis O'Connor~
ca...@bga.com (Lloyd Sargent) writes:
] In article <3cj45g$j...@strauss.udel.edu>, py...@strauss.udel.edu (Thomas
] Rich Schwerdt) wrote:
]
] > In article <canna-12129...@slip225.bga.com>,
] > Lloyd Sargent <ca...@bga.com> wrote:
] > >
] > >Keep your guns. We'll just outlaw bullets.
] >
] > Please reread the 2nd amendment. I'm always so surprised as to what lengths
] > control freaks will go to to avoid comprehending a rather straightforward
] > sentence. Please note the portion "to keep and bear arms." There is
] > no specific mention of guns, rather the broader phrase "arms" is used,
] > which would include guns, powder, bullets, cartridges, cannon, and
] > other munitions. Just so that you don't claim that current useage is
] > different, compare this with the current trade blockade of all arms
] > from China to the US. In this case, the President has decided that "arms"
] > includes AT LEAST guns, ammuniton, and even airguns.
] >
] > -Tom the Melaniephile
] >
]
] Ok, then by your definition, arms ALSO includes grenades, TOW missiles,
] rocket launchers of various sizes and shapes and nuclear warheads. Or are
] you saying that "arms" are limited by size, shape and destructive power?
It does mean that. Don't like it ? Amend the Constitution.
] Does your concept of arms allow me to sell them to ANYONE? Or are you
] saying that the U.S. has MORE jurisdiction OUTSIDE of its borders than
] within?
The US has the power to regulate what _crosses_ it's borders.
Not what happens outside of them, and damn little legal power
to regulate what goes on inside of them.
] We can stop kids in Bejing from getting Saturday Night Specials
We can ?? How's that ?
] but not the ones in Peoria?
Kids, not being adult citizens, don't have the rights of adult
citizens. That's why they don't vote, and that is why, ignorant
one, it is illegal for minors to purchase handguns.
] Or are you saying that ONLY the arms that existed AT THAT TIME are what
] they meant?
Or are you saying that ONLY the presses that existed AT THAT TIME are
what they meant ?
jim...@ix.netcom.com
>] Or are you saying that ONLY the arms that existed AT THAT TIME are what
>] they meant?
>
>Or are you saying that ONLY the presses that existed AT THAT TIME are
>what they meant ?
>--
>Dennis O'Connor doco...@sedona.intel.com
>Intel i960(R) Microprocessor Division Solely responsible for what I do.
>
>
>
I find it fascinating as to how far a person will go to argue a point that they
are obviously wrong about. This guy is burying himself, losing all respect,
because he just doesn't want to admit he is afraid of guns and therefore, no one
else should have them. I can live with that. I would still respect his right
to believe that. This is like shooting ducks in a barrel. Why do we have so
much trouble out in the real world?
--
Jim Berg
RKBA Convention "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
P.O. Box 5366 security of a free State, the right of the people to
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
jim...@ix.netcom.com -- So why are we letting them?
Lloyd Sargent
d...@se.houston.geoquest.slb.com (Dan Day) wrote:
> In article <canna-13129...@slip215.bga.com> ca...@bga.com (Lloyd
Sargent) writes:
> >
> >Ok, then by your definition, arms ALSO includes grenades, TOW missiles,
> >rocket launchers of various sizes and shapes and nuclear warheads. Or are
> >you saying that "arms" are limited by size, shape and destructive power?
>
> No, "arms" includes all weapons. The term is clear. What's the problem?
Including chemical and biologicals?
> >Does your concept of arms allow me to sell them to ANYONE? Or are you
> >saying that the U.S. has MORE jurisdiction OUTSIDE of its borders than
> >within? We can stop kids in Bejing from getting Saturday Night Specials
> >but not the ones in Peoria?
>
> I see the Constitution of the United States is not required reading
> any more. Yes, Lloyd, that's exactly right -- the US *does* have "MORE
> jurisdiction OUTSIDE of its borders than within". Read Article I
> Section 8 sometime, with special attention to clause 3.
>
>
> >Or are you saying that ONLY the arms that existed AT THAT TIME are what
> >they meant?
>
> Nope, they meant *all* arms. Why do you find this ludicrous? You might
> find my following essay enlightening:
Just clarifying for future reference.
[snip]
Dan Day
>
>But it isn't murky if you go by the cutting edge of the 2nd (as defined by
>the NRA)! If I have the right to arms, any and all, then ALL should be on
>the open market.
"As defined by the NRA"? How about "as defined by the Constitution?
Yes, any and all should be on the open market. If our society decides
that this is not what it wants, there is *one* way to properly do so:
Go through the amendment process. *This* is the only proper way to
modify a constitutional provision, with the consent of two thirds of
congress and three fourths of the states.
The current trend towards "oh, why go through all that bother, let's
just ridicule and ignore the parts of the Constitution that we now disagree
with" is deplorable, and opens the door to treating *all* of the Constitution
likewise.
>Okay, how about "no one should have to die by a stray bullet".
Fine, and "no one should have to die in an automobile accident".
So what? The question, of course, is what do we (or what *can* we)
reasonably do about it, and what are the negative consequences of
our proposed solutions? The following seems relevant:
How small of all that human hearts endure,
The part which laws or kings can cure.
Samuel Johnson
He expressed this thought over two hundred years ago. Some folks
never learn.
Dan Day
Lloyd's true feelings finally reveal themselves.
>Ooo, scare me with those big, bad, guns? Sheesh. Thanks, Mr. Freud.
As I was saying...
>We have so much trouble because people refuse to acknowledge that their
>toys are dangerous.
Name one. Go ahead, we'll wait. Also please give a single example
of anyone who thinks that firearms are "toys". Your own simplistic
understanding of someone's position doesn't count, by the way.
>"They're not in the right hands" is usually the punch
>line. Those are not the hands I am worried about.
Fine. So what do you propose to do about it? Please be sure to
detail all of the negative consequences that will also result from
your proposed solution, and why you think the tradeoff is worth it.
>It took a lot of kicking and screaming and fighting JUST to get the Brady
>bill through. "Won't do any good" was the immediate response - but none
>have yet to prove prescient.
Excuse me? We've been *very* prescient -- we predicted that there would
be zero drop in crime due to the Brady bill, contrary to what its backers
promised us. Guess what? There has been zero drop in crime. We predicted
that its background check would be found unconstitutional. Guess what?
It has been declared as such in several courts. We predicted that the
waiting period would have no noticeable effect on rates of "crimes of
passion". Guess what? No effect has been noted. We predicted that
some people trying to get a handgun for self defense in the face of a
sudden threat to their life would die during the waiting period. Guess
what? Several people have already died while waiting for a self defense
handgun in states which have had such waiting periods -- the Brady bill itself
has not been in effect long enough for it to be statistically likely to have
racked up its own victims yet, but just wait. We predicted that any
felon stupid enough to try to buy a gun legally in the first place
wouldn't be so stupid as to not be able to get a gun illegally once
he was refused a legal sale -- no statistics are available on this,
for obvious reasons, but you're welcome to try to argue against the
obvious truth of this proposition if you wish. We predicted that
even of actual felons caught trying to buy a gun legally
would be seldom prosecuted. Guess what? Such prosecutions seem to
be almost nonexistent. We predicted that for every felon identified
by the Brady check, thousands of non-felons would be denied purchases
for various bogus reasons. Guess what? This is true. I'd say we
did pretty well, wouldn't you?
What good do *you* think the Brady bill has done? If you're going to
drag out the bogus HCI statistics on how many "criminals" have been
"prevented" from getting a gun, boy, do we have some surprises for you!
What predictions did *you* make, and how have they turned out?
While we're at it, here's your big chance -- what measurable effect
will the entire "crime bill" have? Or how about just the "assault
weapon" ban? Here's my prediction: Zero effect, and I base this on
specific examination of the bill itself and an understanding of what
it can and cannot do, even if all of its provisions function with 100%
efficiency, which of course they won't. What's *your* prediction? Let's
see who's most prescient, shall we?
>Does anyone really care about the fact that kids are going to school with
>guns? About drive-by shootings (oh, that is only in the BAD
>neighborhoods)?
Yes, we care. Now what do you propose we do about it? Be advised that
the "obvious" solutions suffer from the same fatal oversights as all
"obvious" solutions.
>Does anyone TRULY believe that the firepower of the U.S. military would be
>overwhelmed by the populace?
Yes. Guess who? The US military itself believes such a thing -- it's what
they teach in their academies. If you feel otherwise, give them a call and
offer them your insights. Be sure to explain to them what good, say, a
nuclear bomb does against a guerilla movement, and how the use of such
can be implemented without alienating even that part of the population that
used to support the government. Explain to them how useful jet fighters
are against insurgents who blend in with the general population. Tell them
how to use their tanks against an enemy that refuses to form itself into
massed groups. I'm sure they'll be fascinated.
>Does anyone truly believe the military would even DO such a thing?
Today? Probably not. Someday? Quite possible. The German citizens felt
pretty complacent in 1935, but that lack of concern only lasted a few
short years. Likewise for the Soviet Union in 1920, and dozens of
other examples. The point is that if you let yourself be disarmed in
times of peace, you'll still be disarmed when things turn ugly, and
things can turn ugly *very* quickly and unexpectedly. One demagogue
is all it takes, and we seem to have no shortage of those.
James Cochrane
#In article <3cmv9g$1...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>, jim...@ix.netcom.com () wrote:
#> >
#> >] Or are you saying that ONLY the arms that existed AT THAT TIME are what
#> >] they meant?
#> >
#> >Or are you saying that ONLY the presses that existed AT THAT TIME are
#> >what they meant ?
#> >--
#> >Dennis O'Connor doco...@sedona.intel.com
#> >Intel i960(R) Microprocessor Division Solely responsible for what I do.
#> >
#> >
#> >
#>
#> I find it fascinating as to how far a person will go to argue a point
#that they
#> are obviously wrong about. This guy is burying himself, losing all respect,
#> because he just doesn't want to admit he is afraid of guns and
#therefore, no one
#> else should have them. I can live with that. I would still respect his
#right
#> to believe that. This is like shooting ducks in a barrel. Why do we have so
#> much trouble out in the real world?
#>
#> --
#> Jim Berg
#> RKBA Convention "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
#> P.O. Box 5366 security of a free State, the right of the people to
#> Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
#> jim...@ix.netcom.com -- So why are we letting them?
#Nahh, I never expect respect from gun nuts!
#Burying myself? With or in what?
#Ooo, scare me with those big, bad, guns? Sheesh. Thanks, Mr. Freud.
#We have so much trouble because people refuse to acknowledge that their
#toys are dangerous. "They're not in the right hands" is usually the punch
#line. Those are not the hands I am worried about.
One: A firearm is not a toy. It's a tool.
Two: Prior restraint is illegal in this country.
Three: Preventing legal access to firearms does not prevent criminals from
getting them.
Four: Of the 200 million + firearms in the US right now, less than .1% of them
are used to kill someone each year. Overall, less than 1% of the total numbers
are used in crime each year. Real crisis. Ayep.
#It took a lot of kicking and screaming and fighting JUST to get the Brady
#bill through. "Won't do any good" was the immediate response - but none
#have yet to prove prescient.
That's ok. No one has been charged with a crime under Brady. Most of the
courts that have considered Brady have rejected teh background check
requirement as illegal. So you have a national waiting period on a
Constitutionally protected right, with no results to show for it. Real progress
there.
#Does anyone really care about the fact that kids are going to school with
#guns? About drive-by shootings (oh, that is only in the BAD
#neighborhoods)?
Yes, we care. But punishing the law-abiding for the misdeeds of the criminals
doesn't work. It's already illegal for teenagers to possess handguns outside
of supervised conditions. It's already illegal to shoot at a person who is not
an immediate threat to your life or health. Now, do you have any suggestions
about how to get to the cause of the problem, or are you going to continue to
waste time and money and weaken the Constitution attacking the symptoms?
#Does anyone TRULY believe that the firepower of the U.S. military would be
#overwhelmed by the populace? Does anyone truly believe the military would
#even DO such a thing?
I'm not sure. Having served in the US Army, and been through the training
future officers must go through, I have to say that some parts of the Army
would and some wouldn't. There has been an attitude lingering in the US
military since Vietnam about going along to get along. A lot of soldiers
(and officers) probably wouldn't stop to question their orders if ordered to
seize firearms from American civilians, although there are probably just as
many who would object. At many levels, officers would accept the mission in
order to justify the existence of their unit (and budget). On the other hand,
many officers remember that "I was only following orders" didn't work too well
as a legal defense at Nuremburg. I think it could go either way, and would
rather not put it to the test. Of course, I don't think Clinton has a
snowball's chance in hell of convincing the military to go along with something
like that :-).
James
Billy Beckworth
> In article <3ckptl...@scarecrow.mke.ab.com>,
Or maybe,
"no one should have to drown in a swimming pool" or
"no one should die from poor medical care" or
"no one should be killed by a drunk driver" or
"no one should be shot in the head while holding their infant
by government snipers" or
"children shouldn't be burned alive by their own government" or
I think you get the idea.
regards - BJB
Dan Day
>> ] Ok, then by your definition, arms ALSO includes grenades, TOW missiles,
>> ] rocket launchers of various sizes and shapes and nuclear warheads. Or are
>> ] you saying that "arms" are limited by size, shape and destructive power?
>>
>> It does mean that. Don't like it ? Amend the Constitution.
>
Okay, please give *your* interpretation of the word "arms" as used in
the second amendment that somehow manages to exclude items that *are*
considered "arms" whenever the word is used *outside* of the second
amendment. Go for it. Also please explain how your interpretation is
founded in any way on the meaning of words and the intent of the people
at the time the second amendment was written and ratified, and *not*
on your own personal interpretation of what how you think the second
amendment *ought* to be applied today -- the latter is irrelevant to
the question of the meaning and scope of an amendment.
>> The US has the power to regulate what _crosses_ it's borders.
>> Not what happens outside of them, and damn little legal power
>> to regulate what goes on inside of them.
>
>Gosh, not judging by the Crime Bill!
*Bahahaha!* Thank you, this is one of the most amusing things I've
read in quite some time. I take it from your comment that you have
not read the actual text of the crime bill. I have. The nature of its
contents support in every way Dennis' position, and not yours. It is
full of nothing but enticements of government money if the states should
choose to develop programs that meet the federal government's guidelines,
or changes in how crimes will be handled which affect federal lands or
employees (a *very* narrow criteria). Why is this? Because, Lloyd,
the people crafting the crime bill know that Dennis is right, and under
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (which I earlier suggested you read,
and which you have apparently not yet done so), the federal government
has *very* limited powers over what it can do within the states. It
can offer to pay for programs *if* the states wish to implement them --
it can *not* require the states to actually implement such programs.
It *can* set penalties for federal crimes (again a very narrow category) --
it can *not* tell the states how to handle crimes that are not federal
crimes, nor can it even force the states to make something a crime which
the state chooses not to classify as a crime. The federal government
*does* have broad powers over "interstate commerce", but most crime does
not involve interstate commerce. So we find that contrary to most
folk's demands that the federal government "do something" about crime,
and the federal government's willingness to pretend to actually be
doing something by passing a $30 billion dollar crime bill, the federal
government has, as Dennis so correctly noted, "damn little legal power
to regulate what goes on inside of [its borders]". Crime control is
the province of the states themselves.
Don't believe me? Let's take a random sampling of the contents of
this "tough on crime" bill, shall we? Let's look at every 5000th
line:
Line 5000: Provisions for tax allocations.
Line 10000: Funding for a study on campus sexual assault.
Line 15000: Conditions under which the attorney general may adjust
the laws concerning resident aliens.
Line 20000: Requirement that the president produce an annual report
on a trust fund.
Line 25000: Relaxation of privacy protection for motor vehicle records.
Let's see, studies, spending of tax money, laws concerning immigrants,
and how information records will be handled. Yup, all well within the
federal government's narrow powers, all having nothing to do with actual
regulation of what goes on within the states, and all having precious
little chance of actually making any dent in violent crime. That's
well worth thirty billion dollars, wouldn't you say? If you didn't
understand why people were fighting against the crime bill, now maybe
you'll begin to understand why.
Oh, there was one single provision in the entire massive (26,000 lines)
crime bill which does directly regulate what goes on inside the states;
the so-called "assault weapon" ban. Of course, they only managed to
have that much power by blatantly violating the Constitution and exceeding
their congressional authority, but that only proves Dennis' point once again.
Even leaving aside second amendment issues, the ban violates Article I,
Section 8 of the Constitution; nowhere in the Constitution is Congress
given the authority to ban the intrastate manufacture or sale, or the general
ownership or use of *anything* -- this is precisely why it took a
Constitutional amendment to allow the nationwide federal ban on alcohol
earlier this century, which was supported using some of the very same
arguments about public safety and so forth. Of course, back then the public
and Congress respected the constitution, and/or understood it. The fact that
one or the other has gone by the wayside today does little to inspire
confidence.
What about the ban on illegal drugs, you may ask? The federal laws only
ban the importation or interstate trasportation of illegal drugs -- the
general outlawing of such drugs is the result of *state* laws. This leads
to such absurdities as the crime bill's attempt to "get tough" on drug
dealers, but which is restricted to drug dealing taking place within 1000
feet of a truck stop, and then only when the truck stop is located within
2500 feet of an interstate highway (see the crime bill's Section 180201).
It's limited in such a ridiculous way because that's the only area that
Congress felt could reasonably be argued as being related to "interstate
commerce", and thus within their jurisdiction. They knew full well that
they did not have the authority to arbitrarily decree penalties for drug
dealing anywhere within the US. Again, that's the sole responsibility of
the states themselves, and if some state even wants to make crack cocaine
legal, the federal government has absolutely no say in the matter.
Have I made my case now, Lloyd? Or was there something *else* in the
crime bill that you thought supported your position?
>> ] We can stop kids in Bejing from getting Saturday Night Specials
>>
>> We can ?? How's that ?
>
>Export laws.
I see. And handguns are manufactured nowhere else in the world?
Do tell. Once again, though, your example only underscores the
truth of Dennis' statement -- the Constitution *does* explicitly
give the federal government the power to regulate foreign trade.
It *doesn't* give it the blanket power to regulate trade within the
country itself.
>> Kids, not being adult citizens, don't have the rights of adult
>> citizens. That's why they don't vote, and that is why, ignorant
>> one, it is illegal for minors to purchase handguns.
>
>So you are saying that I'm ignorant because I recognize that minors are
>getting access to guns? I guess in your world view that they aren't, huh?
Nice switch of subject, Lloyd, from the legal questions to the issue
of the effectiveness of such laws. You'll note, however, that Dennis
made no mention of the effectiveness of the laws, and as such any
charges about his "world view" on that subject are your own straw man.
>And what the hell does voting have to do with it?
Because it's another example of how kids are treated by the law differently
from adults.
>> ] Or are you saying that ONLY the arms that existed AT THAT TIME are what
>> ] they meant?
>>
>> Or are you saying that ONLY the presses that existed AT THAT TIME are
>> what they meant ?
>
>It was an attempt to clarify. Obviously some can take interogatives as attacks!
You don't say. Please point out where Dennis gave any indication that
he considered the question an attack.
Dan Day
>
>Including chemical and biologicals?
Go back and read my essay, Lloyd. Yes, including chemical and biologicals.
And no, that does not meant that I think it's a good idea, just that
I think it's currently the law of the land. If you'll introduce an
amendment exempting such weapons from second amendment protections, I'll
be glad to support it. I do, however, feel that such an amendment is
the *only* proper way to address the issue. If you feel otherwise,
please explain your position and attempt to support it.
>> Nope, they meant *all* arms. Why do you find this ludicrous? You might
>> find my following essay enlightening:
>
>Just clarifying for future reference.
Reference in regards to what?
Joe Rosenberg
Sargent) wrote:
> In article <3cmv9g$1...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>, jim...@ix.netcom.com () wrote:
>
> > >
> Nahh, I never expect respect from gun nuts!
>
> Burying myself? With or in what?
>
> Ooo, scare me with those big, bad, guns? Sheesh. Thanks, Mr. Freud.
>
> We have so much trouble because people refuse to acknowledge that their
> toys are dangerous. "They're not in the right hands" is usually the punch
> line. Those are not the hands I am worried about.
>
> It took a lot of kicking and screaming and fighting JUST to get the Brady
> bill through. "Won't do any good" was the immediate response - but none
> have yet to prove prescient.
>
> Does anyone really care about the fact that kids are going to school with
> guns? About drive-by shootings (oh, that is only in the BAD
> neighborhoods)?
>
> Does anyone TRULY believe that the firepower of the U.S. military would be
> overwhelmed by the populace? Does anyone truly believe the military would
> even DO such a thing?
You seem to neglect the fact that the US military is entirely composed OF
the populace. An oppresive force controlled by the govenment would indeed
be overcome, should enough people oppose it- simply because soldiers would
leave the army!. I do not actually believe this will ever happen, but this
country is based on the rights of it's citizens, and certain rights were
carefully outlined to ensure the continutity of this principle. Our
founding fathers knew from personal experience what an oppresive
government could do to them, and resolved to ensure the future inhabitants
of this country would be prepared to defend themselves against tryany. Why
must you attack the second ammendment and refer to those who support it as
"gun nuts"? Does this make those who believe in the first "propaganda
nuts"? I do feel that our laws need some changing- the second amendment is
not designed to arm 13 year old kids in Seattle. But the right to bear
arms is part of the foundation of this country, and that does not need
changing. As for some earlier posts regarding what *types* of weapons one
may posses, the answer is "all". Yes, nukes included. Assuming someone out
there has the capability to *build* one themselves, and can afford it....
Importing highly destructive weapons is illegal, and the military won't
sell them (has nothing to do with the second, just imports and sales).
You'll notice many weapons used in crimes (not all, I admit) are cheap
imports, illegal to begin with. We can't stop cocaine from entering this
country, how would we stop guns? The flow would only increase if we
outlawed selling them. Oh, wait. I know- the criminals would stop owning
firearms voluntarily. Of course, almost all crimes with guns are commited
with stolen/unregistered/illegal guns anyway. What's further legislation
going to do? We can't enforce the laws we have in place now! BTW: did you
know criminals in B&E fear homeowners with guns more than the police? They
know how easy it is to get out of our overcrowded penal system, but it's
damned hard to get out of a bullet wound. Guns are great equalizers. A 90
lb woman is on equal or superior terms with anybody else. Try doing that
through legislation. People need more training and education with
firearms, and laws currently in place should actually be enforced, but the
flaws lie within certain individuals, not the majority of the populace,
and certainly not within the constitution. After all, that document is
what allows us to have these debates on the laws of our country.
Nosy
Note followups.
<In article <canna-14129...@slip228.bga.com> ca...@bga.com (Lloyd Sargent) writes:
<We have so much trouble because people refuse to acknowledge that their
<toys are dangerous.
Why is it that prohibitionists are almost always the ones
to refer to firearms as 'toys', I wonder?
<"They're not in the right hands" is usually the punch
<line. Those are not the hands I am worried about.
Oh? That's interesting...
<It took a lot of kicking and screaming and fighting JUST to get the Brady
<dbill through. "Won't do any good" was the immediate response - but none
<have yet to prove prescient.
Perhaps Sargent can tell us what good the Brady Act
has done, so far?
HINT: Tell us how many convicted felons have been arrested
for violating the Gun Control Act of 1968 as a result
of being caught by the much vaunted "background check"/
<Does anyone really care about the fact that kids are going to school with
<guns?
Oh, good, at last there's someone who can tell me a number;
how many "kids are going to school with guns", please?
And how many of them aren't breaking any law in so doing?
<About drive-by shootings (oh, that is only in the BAD
<neighborhoods)?
The last time I checked, it was a crime to shoot at an
occupied house in every State and the District of
Columbia. Thus, it appears that drivebys are already
illegal.
What "gun control" will stop driveby shootings, please?
William Glover
: In article <3cfvp5$3...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>, dcro...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu
: (DENNIS M. CROCKER) wrote:
: <grin>
The first ten amendments are the bill of rights. The position of the
2nd clearly defines it's intent.
Nope...people are the people, that is individuals. The supremes ruled
as so just recently. If not, how do the other amendments relate to
the state? The state has the right of free speech...I think not.
Read the Federalist Papers if you still have doubts.
====================================================================
"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against
every government, and what no just government should refuse,
or rest on inference."
THOMAS JEFFERSON 20 December, 1787
-source-Oxford American Legal Quotes, pp23
====================================================================
Billy Beckworth
> We have so much trouble because people refuse to acknowledge that their
> toys are dangerous. "They're not in the right hands" is usually the punch
> line. Those are not the hands I am worried about.
Well which hands are you worried about? The hands of the people
breaking the law don't worry you. It appears to tbe the hands of
the law abiding gun owners that worry you.
> It took a lot of kicking and screaming and fighting JUST to get the Brady
> bill through. "Won't do any good" was the immediate response - but none
> have yet to prove prescient.
So what good has the Brady Law done?
> Does anyone really care about the fact that kids are going to school with
> guns? About drive-by shootings (oh, that is only in the BAD
> neighborhoods)?
Yes, but how does removing guns from the people who obey the law
affect those who don't?
> Does anyone TRULY believe that the firepower of the U.S. military would be
> overwhelmed by the populace? Does anyone truly believe the military would
> even DO such a thing?
Ever heard of Vietnam or Afganistan?
Lloyd Sargent
> In article <canna-13129...@slip215.bga.com>, ca...@bga.com
(Lloyd Sargent) writes:
> >In article <3cisvl...@scarecrow.mke.ab.com>,
> >jsru...@meqlan1.remnet.ab.com (James S. Rustad) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <canna-12129...@slip225.bga.com>, ca...@bga.com
> >(Lloyd Sargent) says:
> >> >In article <3cfvp5$3...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>, dcro...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu
>
> >> >Note: Jefferson said "people" not "individual". BIG difference, though you
> >> >may not think so.
>
> >> Might be interesting for you to explain why "the people" indicates some
> >> sort of group and not "individual[s]" given that an important
document written
> >> at about the same time seem to use "the people" to refer to individuals?
>
> >Because English grammar wasn't set in stone like it is today (or rather as
> >people would like it to be). Why is it that people "noun" verbs? Use "I"
> >instead of "me" (my pet peeve).
>
> So, then, by your reasoning, the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and
> Tenth Amendments to the Constitution do not apply to individuals.
What I said above was about a quote from Jefferson that was out of
context. It was not about the Bill of Rights.
Lloyd Sargent
jsru...@meqlan1.remnet.ab.com (James S. Rustad) wrote:
But it isn't murky if you go by the cutting edge of the 2nd (as defined by
the NRA)! If I have the right to arms, any and all, then ALL should be on
the open market.
> How does the definition of the word "arms" determine the meaning of "the right
> to keep and bear arms" other than to define which devices the people
have a right
> to possess? Or are you saying that some "arms" are too powerful for the
people to
> have a right to own them and that the RKBA should be ignored because of this?
>
> >Does your concept of arms allow me to sell them to ANYONE? Or are you
> >saying that the U.S. has MORE jurisdiction OUTSIDE of its borders than
> >within? We can stop kids in Bejing from getting Saturday Night Specials
> >but not the ones in Peoria?
>
> This would be consistent with US v. Verdugo-Urquidez in that those
non-citizens
> living outside US borders are not included within the Supreme Court's
definition
> of "the people". I don't think the US should have a foreign policy that
includes
> treating those not included in "the people" as possessing no rights. Do you?
Could you get rid of the double negatives and say what you really meant to
say. I am not sure if I can agree with something this obfuscated!
> >Or are you saying that ONLY the arms that existed AT THAT TIME are what
> >they meant?
>
> This is obviously wrong. Or would you argue that ONLY newspapers using
printing
> presses that have not advanced beyond 18th century technology have First
> Amendment rights?
It was an attempt to clarify position, not attack.
> >"No one was ever killed by a bullet that didn't come from a gun"
>
> "No one was ever killed by a man who never had a mother" gives us about
as much
> useful information.
Okay, how about "no one should have to die by a stray bullet".
Lloyd Sargent
doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor~) wrote:
> ca...@bga.com (Lloyd Sargent) writes:
> ] In article <3cj45g$j...@strauss.udel.edu>, py...@strauss.udel.edu (Thomas
> ] Rich Schwerdt) wrote:
> ]
> ] > In article <canna-12129...@slip225.bga.com>,
> ] > Lloyd Sargent <ca...@bga.com> wrote:
> ] > >
> ] > >Keep your guns. We'll just outlaw bullets.
> ] >
> ] > Please reread the 2nd amendment. I'm always so surprised as to what
lengths
> ] > control freaks will go to to avoid comprehending a rather straightforward
> ] > sentence. Please note the portion "to keep and bear arms." There is
> ] > no specific mention of guns, rather the broader phrase "arms" is used,
> ] > which would include guns, powder, bullets, cartridges, cannon, and
> ] > other munitions. Just so that you don't claim that current useage is
> ] > different, compare this with the current trade blockade of all arms
> ] > from China to the US. In this case, the President has decided that "arms"
> ] > includes AT LEAST guns, ammuniton, and even airguns.
> ] >
> ] > -Tom the Melaniephile
> ] >
> ]
> ] Ok, then by your definition, arms ALSO includes grenades, TOW missiles,
> ] rocket launchers of various sizes and shapes and nuclear warheads. Or are
> ] you saying that "arms" are limited by size, shape and destructive power?
>
> It does mean that. Don't like it ? Amend the Constitution.
Your interpretation.
> ] Does your concept of arms allow me to sell them to ANYONE? Or are you
> ] saying that the U.S. has MORE jurisdiction OUTSIDE of its borders than
> ] within?
>
> The US has the power to regulate what _crosses_ it's borders.
> Not what happens outside of them, and damn little legal power
> to regulate what goes on inside of them.
Gosh, not judging by the Crime Bill!
> ] We can stop kids in Bejing from getting Saturday Night Specials
>
> We can ?? How's that ?
Export laws.
> ] but not the ones in Peoria?
>
> Kids, not being adult citizens, don't have the rights of adult
> citizens. That's why they don't vote, and that is why, ignorant
> one, it is illegal for minors to purchase handguns.
So you are saying that I'm ignorant because I recognize that minors are
getting access to guns? I guess in your world view that they aren't, huh?
And what the hell does voting have to do with it?
> ] Or are you saying that ONLY the arms that existed AT THAT TIME are what
> ] they meant?
>
> Or are you saying that ONLY the presses that existed AT THAT TIME are
> what they meant ?
It was an attempt to clarify. Obviously some can take interogatives as attacks!
Lloyd Sargent
Nahh, I never expect respect from gun nuts!
Burying myself? With or in what?
Ooo, scare me with those big, bad, guns? Sheesh. Thanks, Mr. Freud.
We have so much trouble because people refuse to acknowledge that their
toys are dangerous. "They're not in the right hands" is usually the punch
line. Those are not the hands I am worried about.
It took a lot of kicking and screaming and fighting JUST to get the Brady
bill through. "Won't do any good" was the immediate response - but none
have yet to prove prescient.
Does anyone really care about the fact that kids are going to school with
guns? About drive-by shootings (oh, that is only in the BAD
neighborhoods)?
Does anyone TRULY believe that the firepower of the U.S. military would be
Dennis O'Connor~
ca...@bga.com (Lloyd Sargent) writes:
] We have so much trouble because people refuse to acknowledge that their
] toys are dangerous.
Guns aren't dangerous toys. They are dangerous tools. Just like
power saws, chain saws, power nailers, axes, machetes and a lot of
the other tools I own.
]
] It took a lot of kicking and screaming and fighting JUST to get the Brady
] bill through. "Won't do any good" was the immediate response -
What Lloyd Sargent doesn't say is that the "Won't do any good"
line is from Sarah Brady, the leading promoter of the bill.
Why did she promote something that she knew wouldn't do any good ?
] Does anyone TRULY believe that the firepower of the U.S. military would be
] overwhelmed by the populace?
The U.S. military does. Ask them about it.
] Does anyone truly believe the military would even DO such a thing?
Who would have believed the Holocaust, before it happened ?
"It can't happen here" isn't much of an argument.
Joshua R. Poulson
I don't like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to
say it. Oops. I don't have any WAY to defend you. Take your free
speech and run with it, boy. I'm hiding from the the Feds.
>Burying myself? With or in what?
Unclear thought processes.
>Ooo, scare me with those big, bad, guns? Sheesh. Thanks, Mr. Freud.
We aren't threatening you.
>We have so much trouble because people refuse to acknowledge that their
>toys are dangerous. "They're not in the right hands" is usually the punch
>line. Those are not the hands I am worried about.
You'll find few people that will not acknolwedge that guns are
dangerous. That's not the point. Practically anything is dangerous if
used improperly. Ever blown up a pressure cooker? You scrape beans
off the wall for months, and if you're nearby you get scalded or
bashed by pressure cooker parts.
Guns, for the most part, are used in a safe, legal manner. For some
reason you want to PUNISH people using their guns in a safe, legal
manner for the crimes of a miniscule segment. Go after the gun
offenders, not the legal gun owners.
>It took a lot of kicking and screaming and fighting JUST to get the Brady
>bill through. "Won't do any good" was the immediate response - but none
>have yet to prove prescient.
It won't do any good because it is doing far more HARM than good.
Stomping all over rights in order to attack a small part of the
population is just plain wrong. Remember the principle that it is
better to let an occasional guilty man go free in order than no
innocent person goes to jail? What's wrong with letting people have
their rights, even if occasionaly a small percentage abuses them?
Let's not even get into the fact that prohibition of popular things
never works. It's failing in the drug war (more headway is being made
through education), it failed with alcohol, and it will certainly fail
to keep criminals away from guns.
In the meantime people that benefit from gun ownership atr trodden
upon with little regard. For example, there are two situations where a
waiting period does no good whatsoever: 1) the person waiting already
has a gun, and wants a new one. A waiting period will not stop
'impulse crimes' or whatever with this person. 2) the person waiting
has been immediately threatened by a situation or a stalker and cannot
get some equalizing means of protection because of some law designed
to keep criminals from getting guns.
The first person is inconvenienced for no reason. The second is
possibly hurt because the police cannot protect every person that gets
threatened. What's more, they often say they don't have to.
>Does anyone really care about the fact that kids are going to school with
>guns? About drive-by shootings (oh, that is only in the BAD
>neighborhoods)?
Sure, we care. How is your gun ban going to keep people from obtaining
guns when they are obtaining them illegally in the first place? It is
already illegal for minors to buy guns. It is already illegal for
felons to get guns, which is the primary offender in drive-by
shootings.
Can't you see that you are only taking guns away from the people that
are law-abiding?
>Does anyone TRULY believe that the firepower of the U.S. military would be
>overwhelmed by the populace? Does anyone truly believe the military would
>even DO such a thing?
Yes and yes.
No military unit can survive very long when the civilians in its
sector don't want them there. Not without killing every single one of
them. It was a civilian uprising that created this country (as well as
quite a few other ones). And if you think that civilian uprisings can
no longer happen, remember that the Army is composed of people that
have relatives in the area, and might be sympathetic to their cause.
Leave the law-abiding citizens alone and go after gun offenders. If
someone uses a gun to commit a crime, throw him in jail and keep him
there. Make him serve at least 85% of the sentence.
--
Joshua R. Poulson, Widener University Department of Computer Systems
PGP Key available upon request, MIME capable, no postage due, please
Allen R. Bromberger
sides select only those arguments that support their side and conveniently
ignore all others. I am especially impressed with those who argue there is
a right to own Stinger missles, nuclear weapons, flame throwers, etc.
That's quite something!
1. From what I can see, the Second Amendment is ambiguous and therefore
(like the rest of the Constitution) subject to interpretation - especially
with respect to who "the people" are (collective or individual), and which
"arms" can be borne. Like the First Amendment, there must be SOME limit
on the right, if indeed it exists at all. Aren't we really talking about
where to draw the line in a civilized (and frightened) society?
2. Does the Congress's power to regulate commerce enter into this at
all? Seems to me gun sales could be banned or tightly controlled under
that power. What am I missing?
3. For those who advocate outlawing gun sales and ownership, should the
police be permitted to enter homes to search and confiscate the illegal
weapons? Will the Fourth Amendment give any protection to gun owners, even
if they are breaking the law?
------------------------------------------------------------
Allen R. Bromberger "It is better to give
abro...@dorsai.org than to receive..."
------------------------------------------------------------
Lee S Wilfinger
>I am especially impressed with those who argue there is
>a right to own Stinger missles, nuclear weapons, flame throwers, etc.
>That's quite something!
Flame throwers, tanks, missiles, etc. would be classified as
"destructive devices" under the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Provided you go through the hoops ($200 tax per device, etc.), they
are legal to own.
Nukes are an interesting topic. If you don't like the idea that people
have a right to own such weapons, propose an amendment to the
Constitution which exempts them from the protection of arms guaranteed
by the 2nd Amendment.
>1. From what I can see, the Second Amendment is ambiguous and therefore
>(like the rest of the Constitution) subject to interpretation - especially
>with respect to who "the people" are (collective or individual), and which
>"arms" can be borne.
Go back and read the writings of the framers of the Constitution. It's
not ambiguous at all. The Second Amendment protects the right of
individuals to keep and bear arms. All arms.
>2. Does the Congress's power to regulate commerce enter into this at
>all? Seems to me gun sales could be banned or tightly controlled under
>that power. What am I missing?
You are missing the fact that the Second Amendment is just that; an
*amendment* to the original document, which lays out the powers of
Congress. As such, it trumps any part of the Constitution which came
before it and that conflicts with it. Thus, Congress's power to
regulate commerce does not allow them to infringe on the people's
right to keep and bear arms.
Brian McGarvey
> Followups.
>
> In article <D0vvu...@eskimo.com> laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) writes:
> :>The second amendment was meant to keep the federal government from
> :>disarming the state governments
^^^^^
, and to keep the federal government from
> :>infringing on state sovereignty to regulate weapons and militas.
> :>
> :>This amendment, like the first, is a prohibition against the federal
> :>government, and was not meant to endow individuals
^^^^^^^^^^
with any special
> :>rights to own weapons, atomic or otherwise.
Do you see your own inconsistancy?
Look this is EASY
amd I = protects peaceful assy ( A well written law like the one here in KA
makes illegal private training of militias in combat techniques.
Protects groups gathering and speaking and individuals speaking and
owning disseminating materials THIER MOUTH.
Amd II = protects Assy of ARMED groups Training which would be construed
under the first as not peaceful.
Protects groups gathering and training and individuals training and
owning the required training materials thier "ARMS" meaning the items
neccesary to wage war.
Get it.?
The people who WROTE our Constitution meant for the AVERAGE citizen could
CLEARLY understand it they KEPT it SIMPLE> SIMPLE> SIMPLE....
Just look at history.
But then again I am probably just preaching to the choir (gun owners) and
banging my head against a brick wall (you)
>
> And your basis for making this claim is?
>
> --
> Don McGregor | "The royal navy of England hath ever been its
> mcg...@crl.com| greatest defence and ornament..." --Blackstone
>
>
Brian McGarvey
Citizen, Gun Owner
Registered Voter
NRA member
Veteran, 6yrs
Bill of Rights
(void where prohibited by law)
no one of consequence
You know, "proof" that gun owners want to own Pershing 2's to blast
gophers or some such silliness. *bleagh*
--
|Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|
|Member Lovely Angels Fan Club/Fire Support Team/Cleanup Crew |
|"Weep for the future, Na'Toth. Weep for us all..." G'Kar, "Revelations"|
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article....|
Alfred A. Hambidge, Jr.
>Very fascinated by this debate about the "right" to own guns. Seems both
>sides select only those arguments that support their side and conveniently
>ignore all others.
But I'm certain that if you carefully researched both sides, you would
understand the reasoning and overwhelming evidence that favors one
side.
>1. From what I can see, the Second Amendment is ambiguous and therefore
>(like the rest of the Constitution) subject to interpretation - especially
>with respect to who "the people" are (collective or individual), and which
>"arms" can be borne. Like the First Amendment, there must be SOME limit
>on the right, if indeed it exists at all. Aren't we really talking about
>where to draw the line in a civilized (and frightened) society?
The Second Amendment only seems ambiguous to those who are not
familiar with the circumstances and concepts which led to our
Constitution.
If "the people" does not mean individuals, what does that do to the
First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments?
How can the right not exist, when it is explicitely mentioned?
Doesn't the First Amendment limits apply only *after* one acts?
One is not prevented from speaking or writing, and only after
the words have been expressed can one be brought to task for using
them irresponsibly (e.g. yelling "fire" ...). So shouldn't it be the
same for the Second Amendment? Your "right to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed" unless you act irresponsibly.
>2. Does the Congress's power to regulate commerce enter into this at
>all? Seems to me gun sales could be banned or tightly controlled under
>that power. What am I missing?
You're missing the fact that the gov't arbitrarily misuses the
commerce clause to justify capricious actions. By that bit of
"constitutional" legerdemain, the gov't can claim power over virtually
every aspect of your life, since everything you do is in some small
measure related to the economy. Perhaps somebody else can cite the
cases where the commerce clause was used to justify the gov't telling farmers
they can't grow corn or wheat *for their own use*, since that would
mean they weren't buying it from somewhere else, and hence effects
commerce.
>3. For those who advocate outlawing gun sales and ownership, should the
>police be permitted to enter homes to search and confiscate the illegal
>weapons? Will the Fourth Amendment give any protection to gun owners, even
>if they are breaking the law?
Well, you're not really asking me, but there is the Chicago situation
where some claim that the Bill of Rights does not apply to those in
gov't sponsored housing. And, there is talk in New York and New Jersey
of searching, without warrants, those residences whose owners had
registered a firearm of a type that was later banned. The logic the
gov't uses is that a warrant is not necessary, since they have reason
to believe a crime is being committed.
"Warrants? What Warrants? We don't need no stinkin' warrants!"
Al Hambidge, Jr. Standard disclaimers apply.
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature . . . and when the right
of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever,
prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of
destruction." - St. George Tucker, in his edition of Blackstone's _Commentaries_
Joshua R. Poulson
Allen R. Bromberger <abro...@dorsai.org> wrote:
>Very fascinated by this debate about the "right" to own guns. Seems both
>sides select only those arguments that support their side and conveniently
>ignore all others. I am especially impressed with those who argue there is
>a right to own Stinger missles, nuclear weapons, flame throwers, etc.
>That's quite something!
The right exists until the law says otherwise. Munitions are controlled
by law. Fissionable materials are handled by a regulatory agency.
Nonetheless it is legal to own a howitzer or a tank. If you don't
believe that, check out the ordinary citizens that own howitzers and
tanks...
Now, getting a HEAT round for that howitzer or tank might be a little
harder.
Owning fully automatic weapons (made before 1986) is still perfectly
legal in the United States as well. Many people avail themselves of
that right, (while paying for an expensive license and subjecting
themselves to BATF searches).
>1. From what I can see, the Second Amendment is ambiguous and therefore
>(like the rest of the Constitution) subject to interpretation - especially
>with respect to who "the people" are (collective or individual), and which
>"arms" can be borne. Like the First Amendment, there must be SOME limit
>on the right, if indeed it exists at all. Aren't we really talking about
>where to draw the line in a civilized (and frightened) society?
There is a limit. Felons, legally insane individuals, and minors do
not get to enjot the right to keep and bear arms.
But regular citizens keep it. They have done nothing to justify having
the right infringed.
>2. Does the Congress's power to regulate commerce enter into this at
>all? Seems to me gun sales could be banned or tightly controlled under
>that power. What am I missing?
Regulating commerce is not the same as abolishing it. Don't forget that
around the time the Constitution was written "well-regulated" meant
"working well or efficiently".
>3. For those who advocate outlawing gun sales and ownership, should the
>police be permitted to enter homes to search and confiscate the illegal
>weapons? Will the Fourth Amendment give any protection to gun owners, even
>if they are breaking the law?
The punishment must fit the crime. Prior restraint laws like gun bans
make criminals out of people that are not actively seeking to break the
law. The amount of searching and seizing necessary to attack just the
handguns in this country would be a project on par with the building
of the Panama Canal. 65,000,000 handguns will not be seized quickly...
especially since a significant portion of the population wil resist.
Go after the gun criminals... not the law-abiding gun owners.
ChrisAXP
[SNIP]
> Does anyone really care about the fact that kids are going to school with
> guns? About drive-by shootings (oh, that is only in the BAD
> neighborhoods)?
Sure I care, but by limiting the rights of law abiding citizens, you do
not solve the problem, you only give the government more room to becoem
tyrannical.
> Does anyone TRULY believe that the firepower of the U.S. military would be
> overwhelmed by the populace?
I belive it is possible, The weapons of mass destruction (i.e. nukes,
etc.) that the military has are relatively useless in an urban uprising.
See the texts on guerrila (sp) warfare.
>Does anyone truly believe the military would
> even DO such a thing?
Today - No. Tommorow-probably not. In the future - Yes. There were 6
million Jews who felt that their government would never become tyrannical,
until it was too late.
Your faith in Government is displaced and historically niave. Every
government eventually becomes tyrannical. The Founders of this country
knew that (as they had just lived through one example) and reaffirmed (not
gave) the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms in case the government
that they set up followed the same course.
"Those who would sacrife thier liberty for a sense of security, deserve
neither."
-B. Franklin
--
======
Chris Mulvihill: <Chri...@epix.net>
GED/GSS/GO d++ H- S++:++ !g p? a26 w+ v++ C++ P? N+++ (++++) K++ !W M+++ po+ Y++ t+ 5-- j++ R G? tv+++ b++++ ID B--- e+++ u h--- f++ r+++ n--- y+++
"Moderation is for Monks - Take Big Bites out of life"
Robert Anson Heinlein
=======
jim...@ix.netcom.com
writes:
[ What Dennis wrote. ]
>>
>> I find it fascinating as to how far a person will go to argue a point
>that they
>> are obviously wrong about. This guy is burying himself, losing all respect,
>> because he just doesn't want to admit he is afraid of guns and
>therefore, no one
>> else should have them. I can live with that. I would still respect his
>right
>> to believe that. This is like shooting ducks in a barrel. Why do we have so
>> much trouble out in the real world?
>>
[ My signature ]
>
>Nahh, I never expect respect from gun nuts!
Maybe if you tried to understand the point of view of gun owners, you may
consider your arguments better and get further with your point. I have friends
who are anti-gun, but I can respect them since they don't try to twist what
others have said in order to create support for their opinion.
>
>Burying myself? With or in what?
>
How about painting yourself into a corner? I've never been good with cliches.
>Ooo, scare me with those big, bad, guns? Sheesh. Thanks, Mr. Freud.
Have you used guns then? I just suspect that you are one of those people who
have an irrational fear that the gun will jump up and shoot you by itself. I
may be wrong. These people do exist, it is not attempt to belittle people who
oppose firearms in general.
>
>We have so much trouble because people refuse to acknowledge that their
>toys are dangerous. "They're not in the right hands" is usually the punch
>line. Those are not the hands I am worried about.
>
We've delt with this before. No one here has ever, ever, referred to a firearm
as though it was a toy.
>It took a lot of kicking and screaming and fighting JUST to get the Brady
>bill through. "Won't do any good" was the immediate response - but none
>have yet to prove prescient.
>
In Illinois we have a law requiring that we get a FOID (Firearms Owner ID) if we
intend to purchase firearms or ammunition. We do this by sending in a picture
and a notarized application. Six weeks or more later, the FOID arrives. Now,
when I actually decide to purchase a firearm, I have to wait, I believe 10 days
for a handgun and 3 days for a rifle (I'm not sure since I never purchased a
firearm in this state, but there is a waiting period greater than the time that
Brady requires.) Okay, what is the logic in this? If I am angry, and need to
go out and buy a handgun to kill the object of that anger, I have to wait for my
FOID to arrive in order to purchase a firearm. If I have a FOID, it is likely
that I already own a firearm, and therefore can kill someone with what I have.
These laws don't exist to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, they are
designed to make it difficult to purchase a firearm so that law-abiding citizens
will be discouraged from making the attempt.
>Does anyone really care about the fact that kids are going to school with
>guns? About drive-by shootings (oh, that is only in the BAD
>neighborhoods)?
>
No, we don't care. Give me a break! This is an example of you burying
yourself. You're attempting to attribute beliefs to us that don't exist. Guns
are toys. We care more about guns than people.
We can easily eliminate the problems of drive-by shootings by banning
automobiles. Enforcement would be easy since automobiles are big, and therefore
difficult to conceal.
Seriously though, what do you really believe is the cause of crime? I believe
it is rough economic times for people and the lure of easy money through the
drug trade and other prohibited actions that people want to engage in. Do you
disagree? What can we really do? I suppose we can improve the economy, but
that is up there with "we can alter gravity". We could legalize drugs, take the
money out of the hands of criminals and into the hands of pharmaceutical (sp?)
companies. We can then reduce the cost of drugs to make them affordable so that
people don't need to steal in order to support their drug habbit. Possibly the
government could provide assistance to those who can't afford to buy drugs with
the money they receive in taxes. This would probably reduce the number of
people killed for drugs and drug money, but will probably shift the number dead
over to people operating dangerous machinery under the influence of some drug.
So I guess that isn't an easy answer. Hmmm. I don't know. How about equipping
everyone who is able to help out with enforcement? We could then make the money
earned from drugs, hard-money, and maybe not worth the effort.
>Does anyone TRULY believe that the firepower of the U.S. military would be
>overwhelmed by the populace? Does anyone truly believe the military would
>even DO such a thing?
>
The founding fathers believed it was possible. Some also believed that no one
would ever dismiss the right to keep and bear arms. Fortunately, others
believed it was important enough to recognize it in the Constitution so that it
wouldn't be so easily dismissed. Fortunately the latter group did what they
did, but little did they know that, even with it in writing, it wouldn't matter.
With 250 million legally owned firearms in the hands of Americans, and many in
the military who are pro-RKBA, I think it is very possible for Americans to win
a Civil War against a government that has pushed them too far.
Would the military ever do such a thing? What about Kent State? I believe the
military fired on a bunch of unarmed students.
I'm not going to leave the answer up to my own belief. I would rather be
prepared for whatever could happen.
James S. Rustad
>In article <3cmv9g$1...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>, jim...@ix.netcom.com () wrote:
>> I find it fascinating as to how far a person will go to argue a point
>> that they are obviously wrong about. This guy is burying himself, losing
>> all respect, because he just doesn't want to admit he is afraid of guns and
>> therefore, no one else should have them. I can live with that. I would
>> still respect his right to believe that. This is like shooting ducks in a
>> barrel. Why do we have so much trouble out in the real world?
>Nahh, I never expect respect from gun nuts!
So I suppose you were appropriately amazed when you received the logical
arguments that attempted to change your views?
>Burying myself? With or in what?
Down in the ooze of emotional ignorance that anti-gun groups seem to want
to promote.
>Ooo, scare me with those big, bad, guns? Sheesh. Thanks, Mr. Freud.
If you're not afraid of guns why worry about them so much. After all, many
more deaths occur of other causes each year. Why not worry about those
causes instead?
>We have so much trouble because people refuse to acknowledge that their
>toys are dangerous. "They're not in the right hands" is usually the punch
>line. Those are not the hands I am worried about.
So you're afraid of the guns and not the people? Guns are dangerous only to
the extent people behave dangerously with them -- just like the dangers presented
by cars and drivers.
>It took a lot of kicking and screaming and fighting JUST to get the Brady
>bill through. "Won't do any good" was the immediate response - but none
>have yet to prove prescient.
Well let's see. The groups that pushed through the Brady bill like to quote
statistics about how many criminals were denied gun purchases because of the
Brady bill. Since it is a felony to lie on the form you fill out, and no gun
store is going to bother running a check on someone who admits to being
disqualified on that form, how many people do you think have been prosecuted
for this felony offence? Keep in mind that it ought to be about the easiest
felony case anyone has ever prosecuted. The answer, according to a Justice
Department spokesperson appearing in a congressional hearing, is "none".
So how is the Brady bill so effective? Wasn't the idea that we'd be able
to prosecute these criminals?
>Does anyone really care about the fact that kids are going to school with
>guns? About drive-by shootings (oh, that is only in the BAD
>neighborhoods)?
Yes I do care. I just disagree that more gun control is the answer since we
already have more gun control than most people realize.
What do you think is the procedure required for purchasing a handgun?
How about a rifle or shotgun?
And what sort of penalties already exist for misuse of those guns?
>Does anyone TRULY believe that the firepower of the U.S. military would be
>overwhelmed by the populace? Does anyone truly believe the military would
>even DO such a thing?
A) Yes. But I expect that if it ever came to revolution that large parts of
the US military would be part of the revolt (or at least refuse to fire on
civilians). You might want to investigate the feelings of those in the
military.
B) What do you mean by "even DO such a thing"? Are you referring to the
military taking over the government (as has happened elsewhere) or the
government using the military to shore up the power of a ruler who the
people want out (as has also happened elsewhere)? Saying "it can't happen
here" is not an acceptable answer to these potential problems.
James S. Rustad | "A well regulated militia being necessary
NRA Life Member | to the security of a free State, the right
Libertarian Party | of the people to keep and bear Arms shall
of Wisconsin | not be infringed."
Executive Committee |
Member-at-large | ------DON'T TREAD ON ME------
James S. Rustad
>In article <3ckptl...@scarecrow.mke.ab.com>,
>jsru...@meqlan1.remnet.ab.com (James S. Rustad) wrote:
>> In article <canna-13129...@slip215.bga.com>, ca...@bga.com
>(Lloyd Sargent) says:
>> >In article <3cj45g$j...@strauss.udel.edu>, py...@strauss.udel.edu (Thomas
>Rich Schwerdt) wrote:
>> >> In article <canna-12129...@slip225.bga.com>,Lloyd Sargent
><ca...@bga.com> wrote:
>> >Ok, then by your definition, arms ALSO includes grenades, TOW missiles,
>> >rocket launchers of various sizes and shapes and nuclear warheads. Or are
>> >you saying that "arms" are limited by size, shape and destructive power?
>> Now you're getting into a murkier area. I suspect that many (if not most)
>> people would define this as any weapon in common use by the military. This
>> definition is the one used by the Supreme Court in US v. Miller. Others might
>> try to expand this definition somewhat.
>But it isn't murky if you go by the cutting edge of the 2nd (as defined by
>the NRA)! If I have the right to arms, any and all, then ALL should be on
>the open market.
If you believe this is the position put forth by the NRA you have not been
listening to the NRA. Could it be that you've been listening to some anti-gun
group describing the NRA position?
>> >Does your concept of arms allow me to sell them to ANYONE? Or are you
>> >saying that the U.S. has MORE jurisdiction OUTSIDE of its borders than
>> >within? We can stop kids in Bejing from getting Saturday Night Specials
>> >but not the ones in Peoria?
>> This would be consistent with US v. Verdugo-Urquidez in that those
>> non-citizens living outside US borders are not included within the Supreme
>> Court's definition of "the people". I don't think the US should have a
>> foreign policy that includes treating those not included in "the people" as
>> possessing no rights.
>> Do you?
>Could you get rid of the double negatives and say what you really meant to
>say. I am not sure if I can agree with something this obfuscated!
There are no double negatives in my statements above.
To clarify:
All US citizens are part of "the people".
Legal aliens living within the US are generally treated as part of "the people".
The courts have not consistently defined the status of illegal aliens living
within the US. Let us err on the side of caution and treat them as part of
"the people".
This means that anyone else is NOT part of "the people". Anyone in this class
does not have their rights protected by the US Constitution or the amendments
to it.
Further, the US Constitution and the amendments to it do not prohibit the US
government from taking the actions you discussed above. I do believe the actions
you describe violate the rights of those individuals. I do not believe the US
government should take those actions.
Better?
>> >"No one was ever killed by a bullet that didn't come from a gun"
>> "No one was ever killed by a man who never had a mother" gives us about
>> as much useful information.
>Okay, how about "no one should have to die by a stray bullet".
A laudable goal. How do you intend to achieve it?
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
ca...@bga.com (Lloyd Sargent) writes:
Dan Day has done a very competent job of rebutting this post
by Lloyd Sargent (he got to it first). I refer readers to
Dan's (dcd@...) post. There's no need for me to repeat
what Dan has posted.
James S. Rustad
>1. From what I can see, the Second Amendment is ambiguous and therefore
>(like the rest of the Constitution) subject to interpretation - especially
>with respect to who "the people" are (collective or individual), and which
>"arms" can be borne. Like the First Amendment, there must be SOME limit
>on the right, if indeed it exists at all. Aren't we really talking about
>where to draw the line in a civilized (and frightened) society?
"subject to interpretation"? Of course. A principle used by courts is that
the interpretation to be used is based on the "original intent" of the framers.
"Like the First Amendment, there must be SOME limit on the right"? Certainly.
What sort of limits are acceptable and fit with the "original intent" of the
framers? This is indeed what the debate SHOULD be about. Most of the
current discussion in the US about the Second Amendment is between those who
want to interpret it with "original intent" in mind and those who wish to
completely ignore "original intent". Those who wish to ignore "original intent"
should instead attempt to amend the Constitution to fit their position.
>2. Does the Congress's power to regulate commerce enter into this at
>all? Seems to me gun sales could be banned or tightly controlled under
>that power. What am I missing?
This is the justification used for all federal gun control. "We're not
banning guns -- we're just regulating and taxing their sale."
The grant to Congress of the power to regulate commerce is in the original
Constitution. The protection of the right to keep and bear arms is an amendment
to that document. That means that grants of power to congress in the Constitution
are limited by the amendment. Why do you think the amendment uses the phrase
"shall not be infringed"?
>3. For those who advocate outlawing gun sales and ownership, should the
>police be permitted to enter homes to search and confiscate the illegal
>weapons? Will the Fourth Amendment give any protection to gun owners, even
>if they are breaking the law?
Some individuals have advocated relaxing on Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment
rights for various reasons (gun control, the drug war). I do not.
Vernon R Imrich
|> In article <canna-14129...@slip228.bga.com>, ca...@bga.com (Lloyd Sargent) says:
|> >Ooo, scare me with those big, bad, guns? Sheesh. Thanks, Mr. Freud.
|>
|> If you're not afraid of guns why worry about them so much. After all, many
|> more deaths occur of other causes each year. Why not worry about those
|> causes instead?
|>
|> >We have so much trouble because people refuse to acknowledge that their
|> >toys are dangerous. "They're not in the right hands" is usually the punch
|> >line. Those are not the hands I am worried about.
|>
|> So you're afraid of the guns and not the people? Guns are dangerous only to
|> the extent people behave dangerously with them -- just like the dangers presented
|> by cars and drivers.
What's interesting here is that the liberal trend for putting blame on
everything but the person involved (guns, society, poverty, dysfunctional
family, etc.) does not hold up for the drug war.
The main reason? They had experience with drugs in the 60's and
found out that abuse WAS a personal thing, not a function of the
drug chemistry.
So much of politics is life experience. Most anti-gunners have only
seen guns on the movies or the nightly crime report, just like the
drug warriors have only seen drugs on "Cops" episodes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Vernon Imrich | market failure, n. The inabilty of the |
| MIT OE, Rm 5-329b | market to recover from a blow by |
| Cambridge, MA 02139 | intervention. (the Exchange) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| MIT LP: http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/libertarians/home.html |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Fischer
>Lloyd Sargent <ca...@bga.com> wrote:
>>
>>Keep your guns. We'll just outlaw bullets.
>
>Please reread the 2nd amendment. I'm always so surprised as to what lengths
>control freaks will go to to avoid comprehending a rather straightforward
>sentence. Please note the portion "to keep and bear arms." There is
>no specific mention of guns, rather the broader phrase "arms" is used,
>which would include guns, powder, bullets, cartridges, cannon, and
>other munitions.
Tanks, anti-tank missles, ground to air Stinger missiles, land-mines,
anti-personnel mines, nerve gas, nuclear weapons, ...
I wonder how difficult is would be for a terrorist to kill 500 people
with a Stinger missle near any one of hundreds of airports?
--
Ray Fischer "The secret of the demagogue is to make himself as stupid
r...@netcom.com as his audience so that they believe they are as clever
as he." -- Karl Kraus
Paul Havemann
> ca...@bga.com (Lloyd Sargent) writes:
> ] jsru...@meqlan1.remnet.ab.com (James S. Rustad) wrote:
>]> ca...@bga.com (Lloyd Sargent) says:
>]>>dcro...@s-cwis.unomaha.edu (DENNIS M. CROCKER) wrote:
>]>>> aaron greewnood (star...@galaxy.ucr.edu) wrote:
>]>>> : "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
>]>>> : bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
>]>>> : in government." --- Thomas Jefferson
>]>>Note: Jefferson said "people" not "individual". BIG difference, though you
>]>>may not think so.
>]>
>]> Might be interesting for you to explain why "the people" indicates some
>]> sort of group and not "individual[s]" given that an important document written
>]> at about the same time seem to use "the people" to refer to individuals?
>]>
> ] Because English grammar wasn't set in stone like it is today (or rather as
> ] people would like it to be). Why is it that people "noun" verbs? Use "I"
> ] instead of "me" (my pet peeve).
>
> "legal thought". Or is that "legally insane thought" ?
Ain't it amazing how the revisionists conveniently ignore the use of
"the people" in, to name just one trivial example, the First Amendment.
Perhaps Lloyd can explain how "the right of the people peaceably to
assemble" is not an individual right. Or how, in the Fourth Amendment,
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" doesn't apply
to individuals. Guess the Supreme Court has missed the boat _all_ these
years, hmmm?
Oh, and speaking of what Tom Jefferson "meant" to say, here's what he
actually _said_ about such revisionism:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted,
recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of
trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended
against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
Having done just that, here's what one group discovered:
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and
wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and
court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that
what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own
and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the
Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate,
97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Havemann (pa...@hsh.com) Resident Cynic, a.f.d-q
"There... I've run rings 'round you logically."
-- Monty Python's Flying Circus
bo...@cos.com
>In article <3cpop7...@scarecrow.mke.ab.com>, jsru...@meqlan1.remnet.ab.com (James S. Rustad) writes:
|> In article <canna-14129...@slip228.bga.com>, ca...@bga.com (Lloyd Sargent) says:
|> >Ooo, scare me with those big, bad, guns? Sheesh. Thanks, Mr. Freud.
|>
|> If you're not afraid of guns why worry about them so much. After all, many
|> more deaths occur of other causes each year. Why not worry about those
|> causes instead?
|>
|> >We have so much trouble because people refuse to acknowledge that their
|> >toys are dangerous. "They're not in the right hands" is usually the punch
|> >line. Those are not the hands I am worried about.
|>
|> So you're afraid of the guns and not the people? Guns are dangerous only to
|> the extent people behave dangerously with them -- just like the dangers presented
|> by cars and drivers.
>What's interesting here is that the liberal trend for putting blame on
>everything but the person involved (guns, society, poverty, dysfunctional
>family, etc.) does not hold up for the drug war.
>The main reason? They had experience with drugs in the 60's and
>found out that abuse WAS a personal thing, not a function of the
>drug chemistry.
Hey vern, everyone keeps calling me a liberal but I did not
do drugs, unless Bufferin counts, and near as I recall the
WOD was a GOP idea.
So far the WOD has not reduced drug use, has trashed the 4th
and 6th amendments, and generally wasted a hell of a lot of
our taxes.
As to the other person, it is a charming dream that taking
guns away from honest people will somehow keep them out of
the hands of crooks. Sadly, if the crooks can't buy them
or steal them from private citizens they will probably
steal them from the military, but steal them they will.
BTW, I'm not a gun fan, I just swore to uphold the
Constitution.
B.
Todd Tolhurst
>I wonder how difficult is would be for a terrorist to kill 500 people
>with a Stinger missle near any one of hundreds of airports?
You're not laboring under the impression that terrorists give a rat's
ass about the legality of possessing a Stinger, are you?
--
Todd N. Tolhurst, WA1M The Bill of Rights:
NRA Life Member Void where prohibited by law.
to...@pcnet.com
Brian McGarvey
anybody have some sources (Snail mail, Library of Congress) for the
offical ratified punctuation on the second amendment. Please I need
reliable souceable info for the 2nd amend convention in planning stages.
Brian McGarvey -- part time 2nd Amend convention organizer -- :-)
Citizen, Gun Owner ---- details to be posted as they become availiable --
Brian McGarvey
> Thomas Rich Schwerdt <py...@strauss.udel.edu> wrote:
> >Lloyd Sargent <ca...@bga.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>Keep your guns. We'll just outlaw bullets.
> >
> >Please reread the 2nd amendment. I'm always so surprised as to what lengths
> >control freaks will go to to avoid comprehending a rather straightforward
> >sentence. Please note the portion "to keep and bear arms." There is
> >no specific mention of guns, rather the broader phrase "arms" is used,
> >which would include guns, powder, bullets, cartridges, cannon, and
> >other munitions.
>
> Tanks, anti-tank missles, ground to air Stinger missiles, land-mines,
> anti-personnel mines, nerve gas, nuclear weapons, ...
>
> I wonder how difficult is would be for a terrorist to kill 500 people
> with a Stinger missle near any one of hundreds of airports?
The Government Accounting Office has found that over 200 ""stingers"" are
missing.
Plus you don't trust us to do the right thing. Maybe we oughtta just
convict everyone of a crime including you because you have the capability
to make a stinger type weapon or a large bomb. (using items commonly
availiable in Radio Shack, your local farm supply, plumber, and library.
Guess you need to be imprisioned.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer "The secret of the demagogue is to make himself as stupid
> r...@netcom.com as his audience so that they believe they are as clever
> as he." -- Karl Kraus
>
>
Brian McGarvey
Citizen, Gun Owner
Stephen Lajoie
infringing on state sovereignty to regulate weapons and militas.
This amendment, like the first, is a prohibition against the federal
government, and was not meant to endow individuals with any special
rights to own weapons, atomic or otherwise.
--
--
Steve La Joie
laj...@eskimo.com
Lee S Wilfinger
>Thomas Rich Schwerdt <py...@strauss.udel.edu> wrote:
>>Lloyd Sargent <ca...@bga.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Keep your guns. We'll just outlaw bullets.
>>
>>Please reread the 2nd amendment. I'm always so surprised as to what lengths
>>control freaks will go to to avoid comprehending a rather straightforward
>>sentence. Please note the portion "to keep and bear arms." There is
>>no specific mention of guns, rather the broader phrase "arms" is used,
>>which would include guns, powder, bullets, cartridges, cannon, and
>>other munitions.
>Tanks, anti-tank missles, ground to air Stinger missiles, land-mines,
>anti-personnel mines, nerve gas, nuclear weapons, ...
>I wonder how difficult is would be for a terrorist to kill 500 people
>with a Stinger missle near any one of hundreds of airports?
Welcome to the United States. This is the price we pay for freedom.
What was it that Franklin said? "Those who would give up essential
liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety."
If you don't like the implications of the Second Amendment, propose a
new amendment to the Constitution. Don't try to ignore the Second
Amendment because you don't like the implications.
-Lee
C. D. Tavares
Odd. The very person who introduced the Second Amendment into the
Bill of Rights said:
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords,
and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the
birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword
is not in the hands of either the federal or state government,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of
the people." (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
You sure would think that HE would know what the amendment was
"meant" to do, wouldn't you? It's sad, truly sad.
It's a damn good thing we have historical revisionists like you and
Sarah Brady around to set things straight.
Note followups.
--
c...@rocket.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
write today for my special Investors' Packet...
C. D. Tavares
> > >> : "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
> > >> : bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
> > >> : in government." --- Thomas Jefferson
> > >Note: Jefferson said "people" not "individual". BIG difference, though you
> > >may not think so.
> > Might be interesting for you to explain why "the people" indicates some
> > sort of group and not "individual[s]" given that an important document written
> > at about the same time seem to use "the people" to refer to individuals?
> Because English grammar wasn't set in stone like it is today (or rather as
> people would like it to be).
That's not a proof, just another assertion.
Now you need to support your claim that those words were commonly understood
to mean something different then -- AND that they were understood to mean
what YOU claim they meant.
Newsgroups trimmed.
C. D. Tavares
> > >"No one was ever killed by a bullet that didn't come from a gun"
> > "No one was ever killed by a man who never had a mother" gives us about
> > as much useful information.
> Okay, how about "no one should have to die by a stray bullet".
Or, "No one should have to die because someone else told him he couldn't
have a gun."
Unfortunately for you, self-defense uses completely eclipse criminal and/or
accidental uses.
C. D. Tavares
> Very fascinated by this debate about the "right" to own guns. Seems both
> sides select only those arguments that support their side and conveniently
> ignore all others. I am especially impressed with those who argue there is
> a right to own Stinger missles, nuclear weapons, flame throwers, etc.
> That's quite something!
Reality bites. If you don't like it, change the amendment.
> 1. From what I can see, the Second Amendment is ambiguous and therefore
> (like the rest of the Constitution) subject to interpretation
The first tack of the historical revisionist: "It really doesn't mean what
it says. I have to interpret it for you."
Let's go to the sources, folks.
> - especially
> with respect to who "the people" are (collective or individual), and which
> "arms" can be borne.
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords,
and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword
is not in the hands of either the federal or state government,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of
the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
Tench was only the guy who INTRODUCED the Second Amendment. But I'm sure
you have a better idea what it was meant to say than he did.
The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth
Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are
are retained by and reserved to "the people..." ...it
suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth
Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and
to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and
Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are
part of a national community or who have otherwise
developed sufficient connection with this country to be
considered part of that community.
-- US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S. Ct. 1839 (1990)
That one is from the Supreme Court. Oh dear.
> Like the First Amendment, there must be SOME limit
> on the right, if indeed it exists at all.
Sure there is. Abuse your freedom to COMMIT A CRIME, and you go to
prison.
We don't "limit free speech" -- everybody has it, and if they use
it to commit libel, incite a riot, or cause a panic, they get
punished.
We shouldn't "limit gun ownership" -- if people use that gun to commit
a crime, or operate it negligently and dangerously, they should get
punished.
The analogy to limiting the Second Amendment by instituting "gun
control" is limiting the First Amendment by stapling your lips
shut as your enter the theatre so that you can't shout "Fire!"
> Aren't we really talking about
> where to draw the line in a civilized (and frightened) society?
I no longer rise to this bait. Up until 1934, the American citizen had
the right to own any kind of firearm in existence, up to fully automatic
weapons. Since then, types of guns have been restricted, one by one,
leaving an ever dwindling class of "legal" guns. (You will notice that
crime has not gone DOWN during this period -- quite the reverse.)
If you want to play philosophical games about "where do you draw the
line as to what arms a citizen may own," here's my last and final offer.
Go redraw the line back to where it was before 1934, before I will
even sit down at the table and talk to you. Consider it my requirement
that you show good faith -- something that gun-grabbers have never been
long on. Then we'll sit down and have a nice philosophical talk about
where the line SHOULD be -- once it's no longer moving.
Otherwise, the entire exercise smacks of a rapist discussing with his
victim about how she tells the difference between true love and mere
infatuation.
> 2. Does the Congress's power to regulate commerce enter into this at
> all? Seems to me gun sales could be banned or tightly controlled under
> that power. What am I missing?
The Supreme Court justices had no problem figuring out what you're
missing:
Item from AP: It seems that in urging the Supreme Court
to reinstate a federal-level ban on firearms within 1000 feet of
schools (the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act), the Clinton
administration argues that the national economy is adversely
affected by gun-related violence at schools. Therefore, the
reasoning continues, Congress was authorized to institute the
ban under (you guessed it) the Interstate Commerce clause of the
Constitution. Said Solicitor General Drew S Day III, "This is not
about just regulating guns. Congress is concerned with this impact
on the national economy."
Asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, "Is there any violent crime
that doesn't affect interstate commerce under your rationale?"
Ginsburg later asked Day to cite an example of a law which Congress
would NOT have the authority to enact under the Interstate Commerce
Clause. Interjected Justice Scalia, "Don't give away anything here.
They might want to do it."
> 3. For those who advocate outlawing gun sales and ownership, should the
> police be permitted to enter homes to search and confiscate the illegal
> weapons? Will the Fourth Amendment give any protection to gun owners, even
> if they are breaking the law?
Is there some reason you think gun owners shouldn't have at least the
same civil rights as dope dealers, child pornographers, wife murderers,
or cannibals?
Of course, criminals ALREADY have more protected rights than we do.
A law-abiding citizen can be charged with failure to register a gun.
A felon for whom possession of that gun is illegal for other reasons
cannot be so charged. Isn't that interesting.
C. D. Tavares
>Does anyone TRULY believe that the firepower of the U.S. military would be
>overwhelmed by the populace? Does anyone truly believe the military would
>even DO such a thing?
The only thing stupider than someone bleating "it can't happen here" is
someone bleating "it can't happen here" after it has already happened.
Go research what the police and the National Guard did about the looting
in the Virgin Islands after Hurricane Hugo.
They WERE the looters.
Now go find out who stopped the looting... and how.
C. D. Tavares
> Thomas Rich Schwerdt <py...@strauss.udel.edu> wrote:
> >Lloyd Sargent <ca...@bga.com> wrote:
> >>Keep your guns. We'll just outlaw bullets.
> >Please reread the 2nd amendment. I'm always so surprised as to what lengths
> >control freaks will go to to avoid comprehending a rather straightforward
> >sentence. Please note the portion "to keep and bear arms." There is
> >no specific mention of guns, rather the broader phrase "arms" is used,
> >which would include guns, powder, bullets, cartridges, cannon, and
> >other munitions.
> Tanks, anti-tank missles, ground to air Stinger missiles, land-mines,
> anti-personnel mines, nerve gas, nuclear weapons, ...
> I wonder how difficult is would be for a terrorist to kill 500 people
> with a Stinger missle near any one of hundreds of airports?
I regularly launch missiles capable of just such effects.
They are publicly available, on the open market.
Does that make you sweat?
And yet, despite this availability, nothing like this has ever happened.
Except, of course, for actual terrorists, who got their missiles
illegally from foreign sources, and laughed at the laws against that.
Stephen Lajoie
Lee S Wilfinger <wil...@rembrandt.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
[Stuff deleted]
>
>If you don't like the implications of the Second Amendment, propose a
>new amendment to the Constitution. Don't try to ignore the Second
>Amendment because you don't like the implications.
>
>-Lee
>
Ignore the 2nd? Just the 2nd?
No one actually cares about the constitution anymore. Except me. And
sometimes I'm not so sure about me.
The Fed made a shambles of the 1st. That is a pure "thou shalt NOT" on
congress. Not the states.
The fed will gladly shoot a mother holding a baby throught the head if
her husband is accused of having a shotgun sawed off a smidge too short.
And David Koresh was accused of having one too many, so the fed attacked him
with tanks and assult helicopters and finally burned them out, killing
every man woman and child inside. Never mind that the federal assult
weapon ban is a blatent violation of the 2nd.
If you think you are secure in your person and papers, you never filed an
income tax 1040 or been audited. You are required to produce the papers
on demand. As far as unreasonable searches, many search warrents are
served as if they were a license to kill as well as search. So much for
number 4.
Double jepordy was made a sham in several cases. Like the officers tried
after they were found innocent in the Rodney King beating. And the "zero
tolerance" and the recent changes in property seizure laws made a lie of
the 5th.
Who's ever heard of a speedy trial? I rest my case on the death of the 6th.
Yeah, you have a right to a jury trial. But the judge can overrule the
verdict of a jury. It doesn't matter, as the judge will routinely LIE to
the jury during his instructions. End of the 7th.
The 9th? The 9th is suppose to instruct the fed that just because some
rights are documented in the Bill of Rights that doesn't mean that there
are not more rights. Unfortunatly, the fed will let you know what your
rights are when they get around to it.
The 10th ties the hands of the fed, and gives all power and authority not
specified in the constitution to the states or the people. This gives the
states absolute sovereignty in a number of areas, like marriage and
family law, criminal law, education, welfare,... kinda makes you wonder
why there's an FBI, education department, Housing and Urban development
department...
So, there it is. The 3rd hasn't been violated. Maybe you could argue the
9th hasn't either.
And we've gone overboard making sure we don't violate the 8th.
I haven't even touched on how the Supreme court has violated the
constitution.
Ignor the 2nd? We've ignored most of the constitution. Nobody cares.
Todd Tolhurst
>The second amendment was meant to keep the federal government from
>disarming the state governments, and to keep the federal government from
>infringing on state sovereignty to regulate weapons and militas.
Oh boy, another dime-store Constitutional scholar.
Why is it that the writing of the men who wrote and ratified the
Second Amendment disagree with you? Why is it that they wrote "the right
of the p-e-o-p-l-e" if they meant "the right of the states"?
>This amendment, like the first, is a prohibition against the federal
>government, and was not meant to endow individuals with any special
>rights to own weapons, atomic or otherwise.
Gee, the First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government, eh?
Maybe you'd like to enlighten us with your interpretation of the effect
of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Donald R. McGregor
In article <D0vvu...@eskimo.com> laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) writes:
:>The second amendment was meant to keep the federal government from
And your basis for making this claim is?
--
Don McGregor | "The royal navy of England hath ever been its
mcg...@crl.com| greatest defence and ornament..." --Blackstone
Derek Shenk
>You are missing the fact that the Second Amendment is just that; an
>*amendment* to the original document, which lays out the powers of
>Congress. As such, it trumps any part of the Constitution which came
>before it and that conflicts with it. Thus, Congress's power to
>regulate commerce does not allow them to infringe on the people's
>right to keep and bear arms.
>
>-Lee
To all: First of all there is no Constitutional right for ordinary
citizens to own or otherwise be in possession of arms. There is a
provision for a militia made in the Second Amendment, and perhaps
the central government has unconstitutionaly federalized the state
militias. However, there is no right given any of you, independent
of the militia, to keep and bear arms in this country. The Supreme
Court, one of the most conservative institutions throughout most of
the history of our country, and certainly the most conservative branch
of government today, has consistently held that the Second Amendment
applies only to the maintenance of militias. Why do you guys continue
to live with the fiction that the United States Constitution is slanted
toward individual rights, when it is clear that the Constitution provides
for a very strong central government.
Even if this were no so, once you place your faith in guns, the
real truth is that the guy with the most or the biggest guns will win
almost every fight. In fact, the feds have the most guns, and the
biggest guns. Your view of the Constitution cannot hold up to that
sad fact. If they want to take your guns, they will simply take them.
Better for you to fight for a system less dependent on guns altogether.
Derek Shenk
>>Does anyone truly believe the military would
>> even DO such a thing?
>
>Today - No. Tommorow-probably not. In the future - Yes. There were 6
>million Jews who felt that their government would never become tyrannical,
>until it was too late.
>
>Your faith in Government is displaced and historically niave. Every
>government eventually becomes tyrannical. The Founders of this country
>knew that (as they had just lived through one example) and reaffirmed (not
>gave) the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms in case the government
>that they set up followed the same course.
First of all, the government routinely uses guns to control the populace.
We incarcerate more people by far than virtually every other nation
on earth. We are leaders in executing our citizens. We let the military
loose all over the world to practice its destruction. We already live
under a tyrannical government, and with the new Republican majority it
can only get more tyrannical. Just wait until the Religious Right finally
does take over the country. We will all have to become White, Southern,
Born Again Baptists...or else. Why not disarm the public, and the govern-
ment. There will be no peace until the 80,000 some odd governemnts in
the USA are disarmed.
Curt Howland
|> Ok, then by your definition, arms ALSO includes grenades, TOW missiles,
|> rocket launchers of various sizes and shapes and nuclear warheads.
Yes. If nothing else is taken into account,
that is exactly and specifically what the
2nd amendment says.
|> Or are
|> you saying that "arms" are limited by size, shape and destructive power?
Take a moment and think. Of what use is a
nuclear bomb by an individual? It is impractical
in personal defense, as the lawsuits for
collateral damage would reduce anyone that
actually used it to perpetual servitude. And
that is ignoring the fact that that person
would be guilty of murder for anyone caught
in the blast that was not covered under the
action of "deadly force used for defense."
So, while using a grenade or tow missle might
be *EXACTLY* what is needed to defend yourself,
atomic bombs are simply indiscriminate.
They are not, however, removed from their
2nd amendment protection.
|> Does your concept of arms allow me to sell them to ANYONE? Or are you
|> saying that the U.S. has MORE jurisdiction OUTSIDE of its borders than
|> within? We can stop kids in Bejing from getting Saturday Night Specials
|> but not the ones in Peoria?
Good sir, that is exactly what the US
Government is doing right now, by imposing
its own rules of the moment on peoples that
are not United States citizens. Ask a Somalian.
Ask a Grenadian.
|> Or are you saying that ONLY the arms that existed AT THAT TIME are what
|> they meant?
Not at all. If you consider the use of arms
as the punishable act, instead of attacking
"guns" or "missles" or any other tool of the
human who must deliberately weild it, we can
begin to agree on what is and is not responsible
action.
I cannot blame an object for the actions of
its weilder.
|> Lloyd
|>
|> "No one was ever killed by a bullet that didn't come from a gun"
---
Curt Howland how...@walrus.mvhs.edu
What have I done to harm you that you wish
to take away my ability to posess a firearm?
wa...@owgvm3.vnet.ibm.com
>So what's the solution? Why, to follow the procedure that the
>Constitution itself provides for modifying a provision of the
>Constitution to adapt to changing times -- amend it following the
>procedures in Article V.
Dan,
You make very good sense. I agree with your broad interpretation
of the 2nd Amendment as well as the process for changing the
impact of that amendment should the nation feel it is necessary.
A very thoughtful, well written response. Thank you for your
efforts.
Walt Johnson.....................................................N3385L
Loral Federal Sector Group...............................A185E/EDO 2790
Owego, New York 13827....................................(607-751-2158)
wa...@lfs.loral.com.................................FAX..(607-751-6223)
James S. Rustad
>To all: First of all there is no Constitutional right for ordinary
>citizens to own or otherwise be in possession of arms. There is a
>provision for a militia made in the Second Amendment, and perhaps
>the central government has unconstitutionaly federalized the state
>militias.
Perhaps you should go do some more research. I find it interesting
that everyone who thoroughly examines this issue (no matter what their
original position) ends up agreeing the there is a Constitutionally
protected individual right to keep and bear arms.
> However, there is no right given any of you, independent
>of the militia, to keep and bear arms in this country. The Supreme
>Court, one of the most conservative institutions throughout most of
>the history of our country, and certainly the most conservative branch
>of government today, has consistently held that the Second Amendment
>applies only to the maintenance of militias. Why do you guys continue
>to live with the fiction that the United States Constitution is slanted
>toward individual rights, when it is clear that the Constitution provides
>for a very strong central government.
The Constitution is slanted toward individual rights? Not exactly, that is
why the states insisted on the Bill of Rights. Madison himself argued against
the Bill of Rights on the grounds that the Constitution gave the federal
government no powers to infringe on those rights.
>Even if this were no so, once you place your faith in guns, the
>real truth is that the guy with the most or the biggest guns will win
>almost every fight. In fact, the feds have the most guns, and the
>biggest guns.
Part a) More guns does not always equal victory. (See also "American
Revolution", "Viet Nam" and Afganistan.)
Part b) Where did you get the idea that the feds have "the most guns" and
"the biggest guns"? (Compare a common .30-06 hunting rifle against
the current .22 caliber service rifle. Try researching the sales of
ammunition to private citizens. Research the fact that fighter jets,
tanks, and essentially all other weapons can be and are owned by
civilians in the US.)
> Your view of the Constitution cannot hold up to that
>sad fact. If they want to take your guns, they will simply take them.
>Better for you to fight for a system less dependent on guns altogether.
"From my cold, dead hands."
Joshua R. Poulson
>>You are missing the fact that the Second Amendment is just that; an
>>*amendment* to the original document, which lays out the powers of
>>Congress. As such, it trumps any part of the Constitution which came
>>before it and that conflicts with it. Thus, Congress's power to
>>regulate commerce does not allow them to infringe on the people's
>>right to keep and bear arms.
>To all: First of all there is no Constitutional right for ordinary
>citizens to own or otherwise be in possession of arms.
By the numbers:
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed."
It's not a Constitutional right, sure. It is a PRE-EXISTING
inalienable right that is protected by this amendment.
>There is a
>provision for a militia made in the Second Amendment, and perhaps
>the central government has unconstitutionaly federalized the state
>militias.
The militia, as defined by the United States Code, is practically
every person in the country. The most limiting definition still
includes all males from 17 to 45 who are not in elected office.
The 14th Amendment applies the Consitution's requirements to
the states as well. There is no unconsitutional federalization
of rights involved.
>However, there is no right given any of you, independent
>of the militia, to keep and bear arms in this country.
Rights are not given, they are inalienable.
>The Supreme
>Court, one of the most conservative institutions throughout most of
>the history of our country, and certainly the most conservative branch
>of government today, has consistently held that the Second Amendment
>applies only to the maintenance of militias.
The trail of precdent completely invalidates this claim. The Supreme
Court does often refuse to hear Second Amendment cases, but when
they have heard them, they have not invalidated the right of the
people to keep and bear arms.
>Why do you guys continue
>to live with the fiction that the United States Constitution is slanted
>toward individual rights, when it is clear that the Constitution provides
>for a very strong central government.
Because the Federalist Papers, writen by the folks that drafted the
Constitution, say that the founding fathers did NOT want a strong
central government.
>Even if this were no so, once you place your faith in guns, the
>real truth is that the guy with the most or the biggest guns will win
>almost every fight.
And the guy with no guns will lose almost every fight.
>In fact, the feds have the most guns, and the
>biggest guns.
The people own 200,000,000+ guns. The Feds do not own more than
private citizens.
They do have bigger guns... but a molotov cocktail makes a tank
VERY uncomfortable, and a hunting rifle will pick off a soldier
with an automatic weapon from hundreds of yards away.
>Your view of the Constitution cannot hold up to that
>sad fact. If they want to take your guns, they will simply take them.
I'd love to see them try. There's nothing like blood in the streets
to underscore a civil rights violation.
>Better for you to fight for a system less dependent on guns altogether.
The system doesn't depend on guns at all.
--
Joshua R. Poulson, Widener University Department of Computer Systems
PGP Key available upon request, MIME capable, no postage due, please
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
] Thomas Rich Schwerdt <py...@strauss.udel.edu> wrote:
] >Lloyd Sargent <ca...@bga.com> wrote:
] >>
] >>Keep your guns. We'll just outlaw bullets.
] >
] >Please reread the 2nd amendment. I'm always so surprised as to what lengths
] >control freaks will go to to avoid comprehending a rather straightforward
] >sentence. Please note the portion "to keep and bear arms." There is
] >no specific mention of guns, rather the broader phrase "arms" is used,
] >which would include guns, powder, bullets, cartridges, cannon, and
] >other munitions.
]
] Tanks, anti-tank missles, ground to air Stinger missiles, land-mines,
] anti-personnel mines, nerve gas, nuclear weapons, ...
]
] I wonder how difficult is would be for a terrorist to kill 500 people
] with a Stinger missle near any one of hundreds of airports?
Ray Fischer seems blissfully unaware of the number of working
anti-aircraft guns that are in private hands. Weapons that
don't need to be near the airport to take down a plane.
But if Ray Fischer has a problem with these weapons, I suggest
he amend the Constitution, instead of just _ignoring_ it.
--
Dennis O'Connor doco...@sedona.intel.com
Intel i960(R) Microprocessor Division Solely responsible for what I do.
Joshua R. Poulson
>disarming the state governments, and to keep the federal government from
>infringing on state sovereignty to regulate weapons and militas.
Read it again.
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
Why are the "people" in this amendment any different from the people
in the first, fourth, fifth and other amendments? The people are
the people.
The 14th amendment, by the way, applies the Consitution to the states.
Besides, many states have a stronger protection for the right to
keep and bear arms. For example, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
has "The right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-
defense shall not be questioned." in the constitution.
>This amendment, like the first, is a prohibition against the federal
>government, and was not meant to endow individuals with any special
>rights to own weapons, atomic or otherwise.
Arms are arms, buddy. If you don't like it, change the Constitution.
People in the early years of the Union had cannon on their own private
ships. People had the finest firearms money could buy in their homes.
Or do you think that no new arms would be allowed? Does that mean
no new presses are allowed by the first amendment? Does that mean
that the first amendment doesn't apply to Scientology?
Matthew Russotto
Allen R. Bromberger <abro...@dorsai.org> wrote:
}Very fascinated by this debate about the "right" to own guns. Seems both
}sides select only those arguments that support their side and conveniently
}ignore all others.
While some on one side, and all on the other, do that, some on the
pro-gun side consistently confront and demolish the arguments which
support the other side.
}I am especially impressed with those who argue there is
}a right to own Stinger missles, nuclear weapons, flame throwers, etc.
}That's quite something!
}1. From what I can see, the Second Amendment is ambiguous and therefore
}(like the rest of the Constitution) subject to interpretation - especially
}with respect to who "the people" are (collective or individual),
It's individual everywhere ELSE in the Bill of Rights-- does the same
ambiguity exist in the Fourth Amendment?
} and which
}"arms" can be borne. Like the First Amendment, there must be SOME limit
}on the right, if indeed it exists at all. Aren't we really talking about
}where to draw the line in a civilized (and frightened) society?
No. Once we start playing a line drawing game, we have surrendered
our principles-- it's like the old joke about the man who walks into a
bar and asks a women if she'll have sex with him for $1,000,000-- she
agrees, and he says "what about $50", and she says "What do you think
I am, some kind of whore". His answer is "We've already settled that,
now we are haggling about price".
}2. Does the Congress's power to regulate commerce enter into this at
}all? Seems to me gun sales could be banned or tightly controlled under
}that power. What am I missing?
The 2nd Amendment limits that power with respect to arms-- just as
the first amendment says that Congress can't forbid or tightly control
interstate commerce in, say, newspapers.
}3. For those who advocate outlawing gun sales and ownership, should the
}police be permitted to enter homes to search and confiscate the illegal
}weapons? Will the Fourth Amendment give any protection to gun owners, even
}if they are breaking the law?
History suggests it will not.
Lee S Wilfinger
>>You are missing the fact that the Second Amendment is just that; an
>>*amendment* to the original document, which lays out the powers of
>>Congress. As such, it trumps any part of the Constitution which came
>>before it and that conflicts with it. Thus, Congress's power to
>>regulate commerce does not allow them to infringe on the people's
>>right to keep and bear arms.
>To all: First of all there is no Constitutional right for ordinary
>citizens to own or otherwise be in possession of arms.
Read the Second Amendment sometime. The Bill of Rights protects
rights of individuals.
>The Supreme Court, one of the most conservative institutions
>throughout most of the history of our country, and certainly the most
>conservative branch of government today, has consistently held that
>the Second Amendment applies only to the maintenance of militias.
*Do* tell. Please cite the cases which you think support your claim.
>Even if this were no so, once you place your faith in guns, the
>real truth is that the guy with the most or the biggest guns will win
>almost every fight.
Incorrect. The person with the "biggest" gun doesn't necessarily win.
Where do people get this stuff from?
As for people having "the most" guns winning... having more resources
is an asset, but doesn't guarantee a victory.
That aside, the civilian population has some 200+ million firearms...
>If they want to take your guns, they will simply take them.
Not likely. Not without significant resistance. And they'll have to
find them, first.
-Lee
Lee S Wilfinger
>Why not disarm the public, and the govern-
>ment. There will be no peace until the 80,000 some odd governemnts in
>the USA are disarmed.
Disarm the governments first. After that's complete, then talk about
disarming the public.
-Lee
Lee S Wilfinger
>The second amendment was meant to keep the federal government from
>disarming the state governments, and to keep the federal government from
>infringing on state sovereignty to regulate weapons and militas.
Then why does the amendment refer to "the right of the people", and
not "the right of the states"? Your interpretation is inconsistent
with the writings of the framers of the Constitution.
>This amendment, like the first, is a prohibition against the federal
>government, and was not meant to endow individuals with any special
>rights to own weapons, atomic or otherwise.
And the Second Amendment, like the other amendments in the Bill of
Rights, does NOT endow individuals with any rights. It *recognizes*
those rights; the rights pre-exist, and are not dependent upon the
Constitution for their existence. Check the wording of the
amendments sometime.
-Lee
Kirk Hays
In article <3cq8q9$c...@maple.enet.net>, Derek Shenk <lega...@enet.net> wrote:
>
>To all: First of all there is no Constitutional right for ordinary
>citizens to own or otherwise be in possession of arms.
Says you. Care to back that up with a quote or six from the people who
wrote the document in question? Surely they *knew* what they meant by "...the
right of the people...".
>There is a
>provision for a militia made in the Second Amendment, and perhaps
>the central government has unconstitutionaly federalized the state
>militias.
No provision was made by the Second. Instead, it is simply noted that a
militia is necessary to the security of a free state, a statement of the
doctrinaire thought of the Revolutionaries WRT how the existence of the
State might best be protected.
>However, there is no right given any of you, independent
>of the militia, to keep and bear arms in this country.
Right on the money - the right *predates* the Amendment, both in lex
communis (Common Law), and in lex naturae (Natural Law), and is not *given*
or *granted* by the Second, but rather *guaranteed* against encroachment.
Also, chances are very good that most of the people reading this *are*
members of the militia - the unorganized militia, as defined in Title 10,
USC, 311, puts all men, ages 17-45, with some minor exceptions, into the
organized militia. Since women are now legally equivalent to men, it is
likely that all women 17-45 are now in the militia, too. Age
discrimination is frowned on, too, so it is possible that adults of any age,
not otherwise disqualified, are members of the militia.
I'd bet that you, Derek, are a member of the unorganized militia.
Whether you knew it or not.
>The Supreme
>Court, one of the most conservative institutions throughout most of
>the history of our country, and certainly the most conservative branch
>of government today, has consistently held that the Second Amendment
>applies only to the maintenance of militias.
Citations, please (*hint* - we've already seen them, so don't bother trying
to cite passages out of context. You'll get nuked.)
>Why do you guys continue
>to live with the fiction that the United States Constitution is slanted
>toward individual rights, when it is clear that the Constitution provides
>for a very strong central government.
Because we've accumulated evidence that your viewpoint is flawed.
Because we've worked through the philosophical underpinnings of
our government.
Because we know, from experience, that guns are inanimate objects, mere
tools that implement their users' desires.
Because we've seen, through history, that unarmed peoples are victimized
by governments in horrible, repressive ways.
Because we've seen that States through history that have armed their
people have survived for long periods, whereas states that disarm
their people rarely last a century after that disarming.
Because strong central governments must be balanced by the negative
feedback that an armed people provide, least the government surge out of
control.
Because we believe that every person should control their own destiny, and
not be fettered by sugarteat governments. People should be held
responsible for their actions, but not be punished by prior restraint,
or for the illegal actions of others.
Because we know that the only person who can be counted on to defend you,
is you. Police have no obligation to do so, nor can they be everywhere.
>Even if this were no so, once you place your faith in guns, the
>real truth is that the guy with the most or the biggest guns will win
>almost every fight.
Nonsense. Every person can effectively use at most one gun at a time, and
skill matters far more than caliber or capacity. A miss is a miss, and a
poorly placed shot gets trumped by effective return fire every time.
Incidently, we don't put our faith in guns. We put our faith in our
principles, in our fellows, and in our willingness to use force to prevent
out of control government.
>In fact, the feds have the most guns, and the
>biggest guns.
They may have huge stockpiles, but I doubt they can match the 200+ million
firearms in private hands in the USA.
They do have big guns, but a 105mm howitzer is of little use against
guerillas in residential neighborhoods.
I might point out that government troops, including state and local police,
are dwarfed in number by just the NRA, alone, the membership of which is
about 3.7 million, and which is a relatively small subset of the 60-70 million
gunowners in the USA.
*We* outnumber your precious "feds." Several times over. And, except for
those of us who "come out" in public, it is not possible to distinguish us
by appearance, gender, race, religion, or any other classification.
>Your view of the Constitution cannot hold up to that
>sad fact.
Your poor arguments vitiate entirely the dubious validity of your "sad fact."
>If they want to take your guns, they will simply take them.
Perhaps, for a while. Among those of us who are out of the closet, and
serve as canaries for the rest.
>Better for you to fight for a system less dependent on guns altogether.
Since your system is based in lies and half-truths, dubious, unfounded
assumptions, and revisionist history, let's not, and (proudly) say we didn't.
--
Kirk Hays
Seventh Generation NRA Life Member
[I don't speak for Intel. Every claim critically examined...]
Nosy
<
<
< To all: First of all there is no Constitutional right for ordinary
< citizens to own or otherwise be in possession of arms.
Odd, the SC has ruled otherwise.
<There is a
<provision for a militia made in the Second Amendment, and perhaps
<the central government has unconstitutionaly federalized the state
<militias. However, there is no right given any of you, independent
<of the militia, to keep and bear arms in this country. The Supreme
<Court, one of the most conservative institutions throughout most of
<the history of our country, and certainly the most conservative branch
<of government today, has consistently held that the Second Amendment
<applies only to the maintenance of militias.
Really? Please cite these SC decisions.
James S. Rustad
>The second amendment was meant to keep the federal government from
>disarming the state governments, and to keep the federal government from
>infringing on state sovereignty to regulate weapons and militas.
Please tell us how you came to this conclusion given the clear statements
of individuals around at the time (quoted below):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No man shall be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the
people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to
protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers,
334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
"The Constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert
that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by
themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people
at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the
individual as unalienable and which, consequently, no majority has a right to
deprive them of."
-- Albert Gallatin
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we
cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? ... If our defense be the real
object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more
propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or what about some more recent statements:
"The right confirmed by the Second Amendment is not a right granted by the
Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument
for its existence."
-- U.S. Supreme Court decision
U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876)
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against
arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears
remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This amendment, like the first, is a prohibition against the federal
>government, and was not meant to endow individuals with any special
>rights to own weapons, atomic or otherwise.
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States."
-- Fourteenth Amendment
US Constitution
Are you willing to argue that this amendment does nothing?
bo...@kirwaido.trystero.com
>...
>Ray Fischer seems blissfully unaware of the number of working
>anti-aircraft guns that are in private hands. Weapons that
>don't need to be near the airport to take down a plane.
>
>But if Ray Fischer has a problem with these weapons, I suggest
>he amend the Constitution, instead of just _ignoring_ it.
Hmmm... Just what are the stats on downing planes with
privately held anti-aircraft guns in the US?
On the other hand, seems like I'd be rather suspicious of a
neighbor with an anti-aircraft weapon in his yard.
Tally ho,
Bob
http://www.trystero.com/kiwaido.hmtl
________________________________________________________________
"Democracy is mob rule with income taxes."
________________________________________________________________
Dennis O'Connor -FT-~
lega...@enet.net (Derek Shenk) writes:
] >You are missing the fact that the Second Amendment is just that; an
] >*amendment* to the original document, which lays out the powers of
] >Congress. As such, it trumps any part of the Constitution which came
] >before it and that conflicts with it. Thus, Congress's power to
] >regulate commerce does not allow them to infringe on the people's
] >right to keep and bear arms.
] >
] >-Lee
]
] To all: First of all there is no Constitutional right for ordinary
] citizens to own or otherwise be in possession of arms.
Prove it. I'm tired of lame-brained unsupported assertions.
Explain why "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
ins't the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. If you
can twist English and logic enough to seem to do that to your
own satisfaction, please explain why your twisted logic should
not be applied to the other parts of the Bill of Rights that
say the "people" jhave certain rights.
Just WHAT is the AGENDA of these people who are trying to claim
the BoR guarantees the GOVERNMENTS rights, not the peoples ?
] Even if this were no so, once you place your faith in guns, the
] real truth is that the guy with the most or the biggest guns will win
] almost every fight.
Afghanistan and Vietnam. You lose.
Ray Fischer
>> >Please reread the 2nd amendment. I'm always so surprised as to what lengths
>> >control freaks will go to to avoid comprehending a rather straightforward
>> >sentence. Please note the portion "to keep and bear arms." There is
>> >no specific mention of guns, rather the broader phrase "arms" is used,
>> >which would include guns, powder, bullets, cartridges, cannon, and
>> >other munitions.
>>
>> Tanks, anti-tank missles, ground to air Stinger missiles, land-mines,
>> anti-personnel mines, nerve gas, nuclear weapons, ...
>>
>> I wonder how difficult is would be for a terrorist to kill 500 people
>> with a Stinger missle near any one of hundreds of airports?
>
>The Government Accounting Office has found that over 200 ""stingers"" are
>missing.
>
>Plus you don't trust us to do the right thing.
I trust gun owners as much as gun owners trust gun owners.
[...]
>Guess you need to be imprisioned.
That's the usual NRA approach: imprison everyone who isn't the "right"
sort of person so that only the "right" people will own guns.
--
Ray Fischer "The secret of the demagogue is to make himself as stupid
r...@netcom.com as his audience so that they believe they are as clever
as he." -- Karl Kraus
Alan Bomberger
>In article <3cl3l9$i...@sndsu1.sedalia.sinet.slb.com>,
>d...@se.houston.geoquest.slb.com (Dan Day) wrote:
>> In article <canna-13129...@slip215.bga.com> ca...@bga.com (Lloyd
>Sargent) writes:
>> >
>> >Ok, then by your definition, arms ALSO includes grenades, TOW missiles,
>> >rocket launchers of various sizes and shapes and nuclear warheads. Or are
>> >you saying that "arms" are limited by size, shape and destructive power?
>>
>> No, "arms" includes all weapons. The term is clear. What's the problem?
>Including chemical and biologicals?
Good question? Does an international treaty take precedence over the
2nd ammendment? It isn't the nuclear weapon that is "illegal" it
is the Plutonium that is illegal to own. I guess that the feds would
like you to believe that if you find plutonium in your backyard (hardly
likely) you can't keep it. If you could, you could make a bomb. There
is room here to modify the 2nd but I would not advocate opening up
the Constitution to ammendemnt give the current state of ignorance
in the country.
--
Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
Billy Beckworth
> In <DOCONNOR.94...@sedona.intel.com>, doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor -FT-~) writes:
> >Ray Fischer seems blissfully unaware of the number of working
> >anti-aircraft guns that are in private hands. Weapons that
> >don't need to be near the airport to take down a plane.
>
> privately held anti-aircraft guns in the US?
I guess that the stats support the fact that arms in the hands
of law abiding citizens are not and should not be a concern.
Perhaps that is what Dennis is pointing out.
=====================================================================
Billy J Beckworth - Member NRA, TX State Rifle Assoc (TSRA)
=====================================================================
Michael Zarlenga
: On the other hand, seems like I'd be rather suspicious of a
: neighbor with an anti-aircraft weapon in his yard.
Some anti-aircraft weapons can be stored in the trunk of a car and weigh
less than 50lbs.
--
--
Michael Zarlenga
For PGP public key : finger zarl...@world.std.com
Kevin A. Roll
In a previous article, b...@bei.pic.net (Billy Beckworth) says:
>> Hmmm... Just what are the stats on downing planes with
>> privately held anti-aircraft guns in the US?
>
>I guess that the stats support the fact that arms in the hands
>of law abiding citizens are not and should not be a concern.
Just thought I'd throw this out... regarding the recent crash of the USAir
jet, there was an interesting speculation over on alt.conspiracy. It is a
known fact that a federal witness in a major drug trial was on board the
aircraft. Someone wondered if it is all that inconceivable that a drug lord
could have obtained one of the Stinger antiaircraft missiles that have turned
up missing from the US Army...
--
"Bit down on the bullet, I had a taste so sour, had to think of something
sweet... love's like suicide..."
Derek Shenk
>
>Derek Shenk writes:
>
>>Why not disarm the public, and the govern-
>>ment.
>
>disarming the public.
>
>-Lee
Lee: Disarming the government and not the public is not realistic, is it?
I am talking something real, not idle chatting. Police officers in many
modern/industrial countries do not carry weapons, England and Japan as
two great examples. I know of no place where the people are armed, but
the police are not, do you? I think a total ban on handguns in the U.S.
is doable (including police). I do not think you will ever disarm the
public anywhere, before disarming the police. Derek.
John Kane
of no real relevance to the rest of the world.
john
--
John Kane jo...@micor.ocunix.on.ca
Hull, Quebec Canada Voice (819) 770-5468
Derek Shenk
>
><In article <3cq8q9$c...@maple.enet.net> lega...@enet.net (Derek Shenk) writes:
><
><
>< To all: First of all there is no Constitutional right for ordinary
>< citizens to own or otherwise be in possession of arms.
>
> Odd, the SC has ruled otherwise.
>
> Really? Please cite these SC decisions.
Okay. Try this. As early as 1833, in Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme
Court held that the Constitution did not give the Supreme Court the right
to review state laws restricting concerning (guns). Probably, the seminal
case in this area is United States v. Miller 307 US 174 (1939). The
unanimous opinion there wea that the citizens only had the right to bear
ordinary Militia weapons. Miller's conviction for possession of an
unregistered sawed-off shotgun was upheld. In 1983 the Supreme Court
refused to hear a case called Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove in
which Morton Grove had completely banned handgun possession. The Court
in that case ruled that an ordinance banning handgun possession was not
repugnant to the Second Amendment. I'll research further if you like,
but I would like to see a 20th Centruy Supreme Court case, or any
case for that matter, that says the Second Amendment stands for the
proposition that the Public should be armed so that it can wage
war with the federal government.
Derek Shenk
>A. Perhaps you should go do some more research. I find it interesting
>that everyone who thoroughly examines this issue (no matter what their
>original position) ends up agreeing the there is a Constitutionally
>protected individual right to keep and bear arms.
>
>B. The Constitution is slanted toward individual rights? Not exactly, that is
>why the states insisted on the Bill of Rights. Madison himself argued against
>the Bill of Rights on the grounds that the Constitution gave the federal
>government no powers to infringe on those rights.
>
>
>C. Where did you get the idea that the feds have "the most guns" and
> "the biggest guns"? (Compare a common .30-06 hunting rifle against
> the current .22 caliber service rifle. Try researching the sales of
> ammunition to private citizens. Research the fact that fighter jets,
> tanks, and essentially all other weapons can be and are owned by
> civilians in the US.)
>D. "From my cold, dead hands."
James:
A. See Quilici V. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1983).
B. I take the Bill of Rights as Amendments to the Constitution, and
therefore part of it. So should you.
C. I was thinking more along the lines of fighter jets and A-bombs. Also
no one, and I mean no one, has more willingness to use guns than the
federal government. If you go to war with them, be sure you shoot first,
and that you have more than a 30-30 to do it with.
D. Either way they have the gun, don't they?
Derek Shenk
>The system doesn't depend on guns at all.
>--
>Joshua R. Poulson, Widener University Department of Computer Systems
>PGP Key available upon request, MIME capable, no postage due, please
Joshua: I have responded to most of your arguments elsewhere, so I will
not respond to them again. The truth is, the government can, and does
restrict gun ownership, and the Supreme Court has not stopped it. As
most pro-gun people will admit, the trend is to even more restrictions,
so the argument that the government can't restrict guns because of the
Second Amendment is faulty on its face. Again, the SC has not over-
turned any gun restiction since the Civil War that I know about.
It is your last comment that I really want to address. The system
depends on guns entirely. Tell me one facet of the American system,
domestic or foreign,that does not depend on guns. Sure, we jail and
imprison over 2,500,000 Americans, and we coerce them with Income Taxes
and other regulatory restraints, but ultimately, it is guns that gives
both the American policeman, and the American military its power. These
groups certainly have not relied on morality to sell the American
System in the recent past. Have they?
Derek Shenk
I have responded to most of this drivel already, so read there. However,
I will address two areas here. First, and unfortunately for you, it is
not the founding fathers who intrepret the Constitution. And as the cases
cited above will demonstrate, the SC has never denied any American jurisdiction
the right to restrict gun ownership. Why else would the NRA have to
continually fight the government's efforts to restrict. Truth is, the
government regularly restricts gun ownership, and the SC regularly allows
it to happen.
Also, if you read me carefully, you will see that it is not my "precious
feds" I hate 'em. That's why I want to disarm 'em. The trouble is, they,
like you, believe that guns, prisons, etc., etc., is the answer. I don't.
The use of guns, prisons, and other instruments of force has never
worked. Why not try something else for a change?
Derek Shenk
>Prove it. I'm tired of lame-brained unsupported assertions.
>Explain why "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
>ins't the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
>
in order to form well regulated Militias.
>
>
> Afghanistan and Vietnam. You lose.
First, I said "almost." Second, without support from Russia and China
Vietnam would never have won that war. Who knows about Afghanistan. I
think that entire part of the world are in a lose/lose situation right
now. Better all of the money spent fighting both Afghanistan and Vietnam
went to education, food, medicine, etc.
Derek Shenk
>
>lega...@enet.net (Derek Shenk) writes:
>
>
See other postings, you say nothing different than the others.
My main point is this. If you are in favor of gun ownersip you need
to find some argument other than the 2d Amendment to hang your hat on.
The government keeps restricting gun ownership, and you guys keep
saying they can't do that because of the 2d Amendment. Its obvious,
the 2d Amendment, and the SC intrepretation of it does not keep the
federals or the states from restricting gun ownership. That's all.
M. Price
>In <DOCONNOR.94...@sedona.intel.com>, doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor -FT-~) writes:
>>...
>>Ray Fischer seems blissfully unaware of the number of working
>>anti-aircraft guns that are in private hands. Weapons that
>>don't need to be near the airport to take down a plane.
>>
>>But if Ray Fischer has a problem with these weapons, I suggest
>>he amend the Constitution, instead of just _ignoring_ it.
>>...
>Hmmm... Just what are the stats on downing planes with
>privately held anti-aircraft guns in the US?
>On the other hand, seems like I'd be rather suspicious of a
>neighbor with an anti-aircraft weapon in his yard.
Surely you're not suggesting that a red-blooded Americna doesn't have
a right to own an anti-aircraft gun?
--
[I had a dream there were]"grounds in my coffee... grounds in my coffee"
- PHoney Nyikos
mp
Bill Vance
>The second amendment was meant to keep the federal government from
>disarming the state governments, and to keep the federal government from
>infringing on state sovereignty to regulate weapons and militas.
>This amendment, like the first, is a prohibition against the federal
>government, and was not meant to endow individuals with any special
>rights to own weapons, atomic or otherwise.
>--
>--
>Steve La Joie
>laj...@eskimo.com
Crawl back under your rock and go back to sleep.
--
An EFFECTIVE +Help cut down on +rwing!xpresso!bill (Bill Vance)
weapon in every +Government Spending; +bi...@xpresso.seaslug.org Bothell, Wa.
hand = Freedom +Resurrect a Local +You listen when I xpresso,
on every side. +Militia near You! +I listen when uuxpresso....:-)
Barry Krusch
though I wasn't really sure what the Constitutional view was ("militia"
and all that).
After reading books like THE COINTELPRO PAPERS and THE PERSIAN GULF WAR
by D. Kellner, I've changed my view! To me, the possession of arms is the
"invisible hand" that changes the payoffs in a manner that decreases the
probability of a coup d' etat in this country.
But what about all those dead people from unregulated arms? That's
terrible, but what about those billion people who had to read Mao's
"Little Red Book"? That's a fate worse than death!
Discussion about the meaning of "militia" has clarified it for me. The
language talks about "state" "militia[s]". Therefore, that settles it on
the constitutional level, supreme court blah-blah to the contrary.
But what about napalm? Do we want people to be able to order a gallon of
napalm at the Shell station? As a matter of public policy, no. However,
the Constitution does not permit "reasonable regulation," on this issue,
so until the Constitution is amended, our hands are tied.
At this point, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Barry Krusch Political, Education and Internet E-Text below
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
FTP:ftp.netcom.com LOGIN: anonymous PASSWORD: [your e-mail addr]
PATH: cd /pub/kr/krusch PROBLEMS/QUESTIONS/OTHER: b...@netcom.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Matthew Russotto
}The second amendment was meant to keep the federal government from
}disarming the state governments, and to keep the federal government from
}infringing on state sovereignty to regulate weapons and militas.
Funny thing, though-- there's a section in the Constitution which
specifically FORBIDS the states to have troops of war in times of peace. A
state-controlled arms bearing militia certainly qualifies as troops of
war. Do you claim the Second Amendment overrides that clause?
}This amendment, like the first, is a prohibition against the federal
}government, and was not meant to endow individuals with any special
}rights to own weapons, atomic or otherwise.
The first amendment says specifically "Congress shall make no
law..."-- the second does not. Why do you conclude that the second
restricts only the Feds? Furthermore, though it does not endow
individuals with rights (read the Declaration of Independence to see
why not), it does protect the individual right to keep and bear arms--
just as the Fourth amendment protects the individual right to freedom
from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Todd Tolhurst
>Okay. Try this. As early as 1833, in Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme
>Court held that the Constitution did not give the Supreme Court the right
>to review state laws restricting concerning (guns).
Since the 14th Amendment wasn't ratified until 1868, the 1833 case is
pretty much irrelevent, wouldn't you say? At that time, the court would
also have held that the 5th Amendment didn't apply to the states either.
> Probably, the seminal
>case in this area is United States v. Miller 307 US 174 (1939). The
>unanimous opinion there wea that the citizens only had the right to bear
>ordinary Militia weapons. Miller's conviction for possession of an
>unregistered sawed-off shotgun was upheld.
"Militia weapons" probably include short-barrelled shotguns, but as
the justices note in Miller, they cannot take it upon themselves to note
that such a weapon is a militia weapon -- the lawyer for the defense has
to do that. And since Miller was deas by the time the case made it to
the SC and nobody appeared on his behalf to argue his case, that didn't
happen. Nonetheless, it would have been trivial to show that
short-barrelled shotguns are useful militia arms, and the rest of the
Miller ruling indicates that they would in fact be protected.
> In 1983 the Supreme Court
>refused to hear a case called Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove in
>which Morton Grove had completely banned handgun possession.
As the SC has pointed out time and time again, its refusal to grant
certiorari in a case cannot and must not be taken as evidence of the
Court's opinion on a case. Refusing the case means *nothing*. The
Supreme Court has *not* spoken on the issue.
--
Todd N. Tolhurst, WA1M The Bill of Rights:
NRA Life Member Void where prohibited by law.
to...@pcnet.com
T. Mark Gibson
>I used to be opposed (in theory) to the right of people to own arms,
>though I wasn't really sure what the Constitutional view was ("militia"
>and all that).
>After reading books like THE COINTELPRO PAPERS and THE PERSIAN GULF WAR
>by D. Kellner, I've changed my view! To me, the possession of arms is the
>"invisible hand" that changes the payoffs in a manner that decreases the
>probability of a coup d' etat in this country.
>But what about all those dead people from unregulated arms? That's
>terrible, but what about those billion people who had to read Mao's
>"Little Red Book"? That's a fate worse than death!
>Discussion about the meaning of "militia" has clarified it for me. The
>language talks about "state" "militia[s]". Therefore, that settles it on
>the constitutional level, supreme court blah-blah to the contrary.
>But what about napalm? Do we want people to be able to order a gallon of
>napalm at the Shell station? As a matter of public policy, no. However,
>the Constitution does not permit "reasonable regulation," on this issue,
>so until the Constitution is amended, our hands are tied.
Uh, I hate to tell you this, but you can make your own napalm, right in your
own home, using gasoline (that you can get at a nearby Shell station) and common
household cleaning products (that you can get in almost any grocery store).
The usefulness of napalm is directly related to the delivery system. If you
don't happen to have an airplane or helicopter handy, napalm is going to
be difficult for you to utilize effectively.
In general, the gasoline you keep in a can for your lawnmower or snowblower
is far more of a threat than a similar amount of napalm would be.
--
Mark Gibson | The Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited By Law.
gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu | "To sin by silence when they should protest
1:233/16 (Politzania) | makes cowards out of men." -- Abraham Lincoln
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These opinions and comments are mine. I speak only for me, not UIUC.
Lance Bresee
>
> Most of you guys don't even know what a "criminal" is. Let
>me tell you. When it comes to homicide, a criminal is usually someone
>who has gotten angry with a spouse, family member, or friend,
>picked up a handy gun, and fired in sudden anger. You talk if is
>there were some sort of class, or group of people known as "crooks."
>If you ever spend time in or around America's prisons you will find
>that the overwhelming majority of people there are just like you,
>except they got caught up in something they didn't plan. So if you
>think the typical angry American will somehow take the time to go
>steal a gun from the military before firing a shot in anger, you are
>mistaken. (You should know that approximately 4% of the 1,000,000 plus
>incarcerated Americans are there for violent crimes. The rest are there
>for property, drug, or white collar crimes, and should't really be
>incarcerated anyhow. Keep the predatory people in prison and let the
>rest go. The "crime problem" strickly a creation of conservatives,
>especially Republicans and Boll Weevil Democrats!!!!!
I can end this discussion, if you are willing to really READ this.
It doesn't matter. It does not matter how you interpret the second
amendment. It does not matter how you define criminal. The statistics
do not matter. Exactly two people matter; you and me.
You want gun control. You want to deny me my possessions. You want
to control me. I say 'no'. You must kill me to achieve your stated
goal. You must bloody YOUR hands. Your hands will not remain clean
if you get some nameless, specialist group, dehumanized, to do the dirty
deed for you. YOU must kill ME. You can no longer keep up your denial.
You can no longer claim to be a victim of my behavior when that behavior
has never had any impact on you. You must confess yourself to be a
victimizer. You must own the fact that your fear, your denial, your
hatred, and your lust for control have driven you to take another human
being's life.
If you want gun control, YOU must kill ME.
Ray Fischer
> Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>I wonder how difficult is would be for a terrorist to kill 500 people
>>with a Stinger missle near any one of hundreds of airports?
>
>ass about the legality of possessing a Stinger, are you?
Not at all. Which is why the NRA should be advocating the right of US
citizens to bear whatever arms they need to defend themselves from
terrorists, criminals, and the US government. And that should
includes tanks, TOW missiles, Stinger missiles, automatic rifles,
cannons, and any other missiles, airplanes, bombs, and weaponry.
I wonder why the NRA is quiet on these things?
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer seems blissfully unaware of the number of working
>anti-aircraft guns that are in private hands. Weapons that
>don't need to be near the airport to take down a plane.
It's rather difficult to shoot down a jet flying at 30,000 feet from
the ground. Much easier when the plane has descended to 2,000 feet.
>But if Ray Fischer has a problem with these weapons, I suggest
>he amend the Constitution, instead of just _ignoring_ it.
It has seemed to me that the NRA and its members are more than willing
to ignore the 2nd amendment when it suits their needs. A suitable
approach to guns would be to treat them the way driving is, with
licenses for use, periodic tests for users, registration of guns, and
usage fees.