arms = biological weapons?
Mr. Jones
amendment was passed to protect against fed gov't being too powerful?
Chris Johnson
existence at the time. Although I would not doubt that people would
occasionally deliberately sneeze in the general direction of those
they liked least.
Meanwhile, the operating principles of firearms haven't changed
significantly though the designs are much advanced.
CJ
Me
population...which incidentally killed about 90% of native americans as they had
zero immunity. I do not think that a biological weapon would be effective as a personal
defensive armament. You would more than likely infect yourself also by throwing a
vial of anthrax or other biological agent into the face of an attacker...additionally, it
takes several days or even a week or two to be effective, so the immediate effect
to disable your attacker would not be achieved.
So, in that respect it would be a very, very poor choice of individual protection of
either the state or individual and in that regards, no, it cannot be considered a weapon
under the keep and bear arms clause of the constitution as it cannot be considerd as
an effective defensive weapon.
However a small personal atomic disintigrating lazer would fall under the protection
of the 2nd amendment.
Next stupid question please.
Mr. Jones
<Me> wrote in message news:3bf848a2...@news.charter.net...
> I do not think that a biological weapon would be effective as a personal
> defensive armament. You would more than likely infect yourself also by
throwing a
> vial of anthrax or other biological agent into the face of an
attacker...additionally, it
> takes several days or even a week or two to be effective, so the immediate
effect
> to disable your attacker would not be achieved.
Actually infecting the area around your house would keep troops away,
especially if they weren't vaccinated, and you were.
I am not familiar with the court weighing the effectiveness of speech in 1st
amendment cases, why would it weigh the effectiveness of weapons in 2nd
amend. cases.
> So, in that respect it would be a very, very poor choice of individual
protection of
> either the state or individual and in that regards, no, it cannot be
considered a weapon
> under the keep and bear arms clause of the constitution as it cannot be
considerd as
> an effective defensive weapon.
Again, since when is effectiveness a test used by the supreme court? would
you have them judge the effectiveness of prayer?
If the right originated in protecting oneself for protection from
government, what about chemical weapons? How better to stop an army trying
to search and seize your house than to gas them?
Why is it relevant that the weapon hadn't even been though of yet? What
about the internet, or Jehovah's Witnesses? They hadn't thought of them yet
either. Does the first amendment protect them?
Me
>
><Me> wrote in message news:3bf848a2...@news.charter.net...
>> I do not think that a biological weapon would be effective as a personal
>> defensive armament. You would more than likely infect yourself also by
>throwing a
>> vial of anthrax or other biological agent into the face of an
>attacker...additionally, it
>> takes several days or even a week or two to be effective, so the immediate
>effect
>> to disable your attacker would not be achieved.
>
>Actually infecting the area around your house would keep troops away,
>especially if they weren't vaccinated, and you were.
and keep you in a chemical warfare suit forever...and totally render your position
useless as it is now contaminated....for human habitation...wow, hitler had the same
concept...destroy everything...even his own people. The old adage comes to mind
its a dirty bird that fowls its own nest.
>
>I am not familiar with the court weighing the effectiveness of speech in 1st
>amendment cases, why would it weigh the effectiveness of weapons in 2nd
>amend. cases.
Because some weapons are considered indiscriminate killers such as gas and
poision and can kill unintended people...the wind blowing the wrong way and the
gas kills a village behind the lines and does not touch the enemy being an example
THATS why sparky....I have never heard of anyone killing someone a block away
by cursing alone...but gas can....are you really that dense????
>
>> So, in that respect it would be a very, very poor choice of individual
>protection of
>> either the state or individual and in that regards, no, it cannot be
>considered a weapon
>> under the keep and bear arms clause of the constitution as it cannot be
>considerd as
>> an effective defensive weapon.
>
>Again, since when is effectiveness a test used by the supreme court? would
>you have them judge the effectiveness of prayer?
We are talking personal protective weapons, the right to keep and bear arms for personal
protection of the state and person....tell ya what sparky..you run up and throw your little vial
of bacteria at me....I will use my gun to stop you...and if you manage to get it to me...I will go
get some antibiotics and recover....your chances of recovery are however...kinda slim...
dont know of antibiotics that can heal a bullet hole....so, I used the common sense rule of
effective defensive weapon....I am all for the keeping and bearing of arms....but if you would
rather have a vial of anthrax to defend your home...go for it.
>
>If the right originated in protecting oneself for protection from
>government, what about chemical weapons? How better to stop an army trying
>to search and seize your house than to gas them?
Oh yeah...and your neighbors and friends not to mention contaminating all of the surfaces in your home
and even your gun....and having to live in a chem warfare suit for the rest of the time. Ever been in one
of those sparky....its as hard on the defenders as it is the attackers...and until decontaminated...your
home is now on the superfund list..
>
>Why is it relevant that the weapon hadn't even been though of yet? What
>about the internet, or Jehovah's Witnesses? They hadn't thought of them yet
>either. Does the first amendment protect them?
You seem to confuse the origination of ideas with the invention of weapons...thought is vastly
different than man made inventions just as a car is to whole kernel corn. When you think of
a future weapon that should be examined by the application of the 2nd amendement drop a
line and we will do it, until then keep your sillyness out of the discussion.
>
>
Mr. Jones
<Me> wrote in message news:3bfa7818...@news.charter.net...
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 07:29:29 GMT, "Mr. Jones" <john...@Notmail.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> ><Me> wrote in message
> >I am not familiar with the court weighing the effectiveness of speech in
1st
> >amendment cases, why would it weigh the effectiveness of weapons in 2nd
> >amend. cases.
>
> Because some weapons are considered indiscriminate killers such as gas and
> poision and can kill unintended people...the wind blowing the wrong way
and the
> gas kills a village behind the lines and does not touch the enemy being an
example
> THATS why sparky....I have never heard of anyone killing someone a block
away
> by cursing alone...but gas can....are you really that dense????
well you don't have to be so condescending, man. you seem to be saying that
the Supreme Court would weigh the interests of the government to regulate
weapons against the interest of the individual to bear a particular kind of
weapon. They do this with the first amendment too, it is called balancing.
I was just curious if 2nd amendment created an absolute right to bear arms
as some people in this forum seem to argue. I guess you think that the 2nd
amendment creates only a limited right to bear arms?
> >Again, since when is effectiveness a test used by the supreme court?
would
> >you have them judge the effectiveness of prayer?
>
> We are talking personal protective weapons, the right to keep and bear
arms for personal
> protection of the state and person....
okay, see I thought that one of the interests that the Court would weigh was
the interest of individuals to be able to defend themselves against
tyrannical actions by the government. Again, correct if I am wrong that you
are rejecting this position.
> tell ya what sparky..you run up and throw your little vial
> of bacteria at me....I will use my gun to stop you...and if you manage to
get it to me...I will go
> get some antibiotics and recover....your chances of recovery are
however...kinda slim...
> dont know of antibiotics that can heal a bullet hole....so, I used the
common sense rule of
> effective defensive weapon....I am all for the keeping and bearing of
arms....but if you would
> rather have a vial of anthrax to defend your home...go for it.
Actually I'm a pacifist but if you would like to shoot me dead I'll give you
my address and you can come shoot me dead if you promise to make absolutely
certain that you have identified me properly first. I won't resist, I have
never even hit someone with my fist never mind a weapon of any sort. Let me
know if you want to kill me I'll let you know where I live and I will go
peacefully.
> >Why is it relevant that the weapon hadn't even been though of yet? What
> >about the internet, or Jehovah's Witnesses? They hadn't thought of them
yet
> >either. Does the first amendment protect them?
>
> You seem to confuse the origination of ideas with the invention of
weapons...thought is vastly
> different than man made inventions just as a car is to whole kernel corn.
When you think of
> a future weapon that should be examined by the application of the 2nd
amendement drop a
> line and we will do it, until then keep your sillyness out of the
discussion.
I'm not trying to be silly, I just wanted to point out that if you limit the
individual rights protected by the first ten amendments to the United States
Constitution to things that the founding fathers could foresee the
government would be able to ignore all kinds of freedoms we take for granted
today. Could you explain why you think the Bill of Rights does not apply to
new types of weapons? Does this apply to all new inventions? New ideas?
Why one and not the other?
Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. I am a little slow but
I am sincere in wanting to learn more about this.
aaaaaa
wrote:
For the same reason that freedom of speech has some regulation to it,
For instance, its illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater if in fact
there IS no fire. A freedom is absolute as long as it does not
intrude on the freedom of someone else. Just as yelling fire in a
crowded theater causes harm to people...certain restrictions on
firearms may also be valid...the right to vote is supposed to be a
right, yet, convicted felons are sometimes denied the right to vote
because of their criminal convictions...their right to vote can,
however, be restored if certain conditions are met. So you see there
are already some restrictions on our rights...we also have laws
against slander and defamation of character...those are two other
restrictions of freedom of speech...there are others but I think this
is sufficient to answer your question.
And yes you are right...if the government is ALLOWED to ignore and
deny us our rights it is going down the road of despotism and
oppression....in case you havent been too observant lately...thats
exactly what is happening.
That is why we must constantly be on guard to protect our constitution
from those who would destroy or change it by fiat or lies.
Steve Krulick
>
> SO does arms include biological weapons, since the logic is that the 2nd
> amendment was passed to protect against fed gov't being too powerful?
"ARMS" as a reference to particular weapons is irrelevant; the
phrase was "BEAR ARMS" and not just the word ARMS! BEAR ARMS has
its OWN meaning and history.
The nature of the arms or their specificity is NOT what Madison
was referring to!
The best evidence for the Second Amendment meaning of "bear
arms" is in the original draft of the Amendment proposed in the
First Congress by James Madison: "The right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and
well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms,
shall be compelled to render military service in person."
In the last clause of this version (the conscientious
objector provision), Madison clearly used the phrase "bearing
arms" to refer solely to using weapons as part of military
service usage. It is implausible to contend that virtually the
same phrase "bear arms" should have a different, much broader
meaning elsewhere in the very same sentence. (David Yassky)
Madison's use of the phrase "bear arms" to refer to military
activities is echoed in other contemporary usages; these usages
were standard at the time the Second Amendment was adopted:
New Hampshire Constitution of 1784: "No person who is
conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms,
shall be compelled thereto, provided he will pay an equivalent."
Constitutional amendment proposed by Rhode Island's 1790
ratifying convention: "That the people have a right to keep and
bear arms; ... That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing
arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to
employ another to bear arms in his stead."
Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)
"The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no
citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided
he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we
know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we
must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th
section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A
man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his
rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said
of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a
private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol
concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."
Want HUNDREDS more examples of the "clear language" in the 2nd
Amen as used up to 1790? Go to:
http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappa.html
For a sample of the piece:
Deconstruction of the Second Amendment.
Compounding the differences between the two approaches to the
Second Amendment is the practice of deconstructing its language,
of stripping specific words ("keep," "bear," "arms," and
"militia") from their 18th century phraseology (especially "keep
arms" and "bear arms") and examining their individual meanings
in a literal sense, sometimes explicitly but often as an
unexamined or buried assumption. Steven Halbrook is the most
forthright in his definition of "bear arms." He argues that "the
terms, 'bear arms' meant simply to carry arms," but this
conclusion is based on very little 18th century evidence and
without any recognition that "the terms" could have been a
single term used in the 18th century in a figurative sense that
would give an entirely different understanding of the Second
Amendment. Some academic historians have also assumed an
equivalence between "bear" and "carry" arms, which serves only
to confuse the issue. Writers taking this approach ignore, or
are not familiar with, the authoritative conclusions of the
Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, which
declares that "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to
serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" and that "to
bear arms against" means "to be engaged in hostilities with."
Therefore, to insist on a literal "plain reading" of the text of
the Second Amendment despite specific evidence to the contrary
is a form of constitutional literalism that, however legitimate
for extrapolation of the meaning of provisions of the
Constitution and Bill of Rights for today, may do an injustice
to the 18th century meaning of those same provisions.
-------------------------------------------------
Steve Krulick
kru...@dem101.org
http://dem101.org
Democracy101:
Improve Democracy with... MORE Democracy!
* 1 Person = 1 Vote
* 1 Vote, More Choice
* 1 Vote + 50% = Win
* 1 % Voters = 1 % Representation
* 1 Nation, 1 Electoral System
* 1 Voter, More Voice
-------------------------------------------------
Me
>"Mr. Jones" wrote:
>>
>> SO does arms include biological weapons, since the logic is that the 2nd
>> amendment was passed to protect against fed gov't being too powerful?
The below propoganda in no way answers the question at hand...as usual
steve is off the mark....WAY OFF. I wonder if he ever has any original thought
other than cut and paste.
Steve Krulick
>
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 03:51:05 GMT, Steve Krulick <kry...@ulster.net> wrote:
>
> >"Mr. Jones" wrote:
> >>
> >> SO does arms include biological weapons, since the logic is that the 2nd
> >> amendment was passed to protect against fed gov't being too powerful?
>
> The below propoganda
Is merely what the anonymous "me" calls what he can't address or
refute. It's SOOOOOOO much easier to call something propaganda
and merely dismiss it than to deal with it. This is "me"'s
standard ploy.
> in no way answers the question at hand...
Of course it does, but "me" is too thick to see how. Since the
2nd Amen is invoked, and the only mention of ARMS IN the 2nd
Amen is in the phrase "bear arms," the confusion of arms as
specific weapons with the term "bear arms" as a collective right
of the people to organize, control, and serve in well regulated
state militias, is the HEART of the matter, and that is what I
clarify by my evidence.
> as usual
> steve is off the mark....WAY OFF.
Why? As usual, because the anonymous "me" blatantly asserts it,
without any substantiation by means of evidence or logical
argument.
> I wonder if he ever has any original thought
> other than cut and paste.
Since he ignores what I write, he wouldn't know, would he? More
side-stepping ad hominem irrelevancies. "Me" has yet to
demonstrate original thought OR the ability to address and
refute simple arguments.
As one who has merely cut and pasted whole articles without even
given attribution, or showing how they address any particular
points made in MY posts, the anonymous "me" is laughable in
making such a charge!
Chris Johnson
Steve Krulick wrote:
>
Welcome back, Steve! How was your Thanksgiving?
Mine was most bodacious. The turkeys have no reason to complain
and neither do I because the menu here consisted of Prime Rib,
cooked no more than necessary to stop that annoying twitching,
as I like it!
I wanted to crawl into some of the issues you brought up
in the excerpt below:
Consider this to be a 'test case' before I commit to opening
up a fresh new debate, if we actually do that.
There are several paths from which one may attack or defend
any of the various beliefs regarding the meaning of the 2nd.
I won't attempt to mount an assault just yet on the most complex
issue, which is to find out what the writers really had in mind
because I don't feel that I yet have a suitably versatile
and readily available library of verfiable writings from them
on this subject.
However, a semantic analysis IS within my reach at the moment, so
I'll lead off with that. Forgive me, but I don't have an 18th
century copy of Webster's dictionary handy, but still this shouldn't
be an insurmountable obstacle.
To begin, let's see the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment:
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.
OK, this doesn't LOOK all that complicated, and I assert that it's
really not complicated in actuality, but it does require you to
have a working grasp of english grammar and composition.
It would appear that there are three separate clauses as written:
In order, of course, they are:
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.
These clauses are each subordinate to the one following.
"A well regulated militia" is subordinate to the second
clause, "being necessary to the security of a free state"
which in turn is subordinate to the third clause "the right
of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Note that while there is a comma between arms and shall, this
is merely a pause and does not denote a new phrase. Some
of the original copies do not have this comma. In any
event, there is but one subject within that phrase,
comma or no comma.
This assertion is further supported by the differing subject
matters in each clause. The first clause addresses the
militia. The second clause addresses security of a free
state, and the third, the right to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed.
A diversion here: Note that nowhere in the Constitution does the
document GRANT the right to keep and bear arms. By the language,
the right is pre-assumed and it is affirmed by 'shall not be
infringed.'
For reinforcement, I bring you the second paragraph of the
Declaration of Independence, with relevant passages
followed by commentary in parentheses:
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
(Note: "...certain unalienable Rights..." which clearly shows that
some rights are not granted by government but instead exist beyond the
scope of government, and they may not be abridged.)
-- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends,
(To be interpreted to read, when the government start intruding
upon these 'certain unalienable rights...'
it is
the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing
its
Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness.
(then it is the right of the people to readjust it by any means
necessary, and start over with a new government if necessary.)
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments
long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes;
(Ah, good stuff there. In stark contrast to Clinton's assertion that
the Constition is "a living document, ever subject to interpretation
and change" (or a close facsimile of that quote), the DOI states
that this long established government should not be changed to
suit the whim of the moment. Since it is beyond argument that the
DOI, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are the three
fundamental documents that are the foundation of our government,
to change these documents is one of the very things that should
not be done, by interpretation of this passage. To change them
is to change the basis of our government. )
and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more
disposed
to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long
Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object,
evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
(This refers specifically to the abuses of the Crown against
the Colonies, but it could easily be recycled and reused, word for
word, in reference to the attacks by the antigunners against our
inalienable right to keep and bear arms. We will only take so
much abuse.)
it is their
Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide
new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient
Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which
constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
(Again, this sounds like something that could be gun-related.)
The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of
repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the
Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this,
let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
(Again, this could sound like a gun-related comment without much
alteration)
Back to the semantic analysis of the Second Amendment:
For convenience's sake, here's the 2nd again, in separate clauses:
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.
I don't think there's much argument about what a well regulated
militia is, not from a standpoint of how it's relevant to the 2nd.
It's sufficent to acknowledge that it is a subordinate clause,
and move on to thornier issues. The meaning of "militia"
by itself does not significantly impact the meaning of the
second and third clauses.
I also don't think there's much to be discussed with regard to
the second clause. Taken in context with the first clause, it
is clear up to this point.
The third clause is where it gets kind of hairy.
The first issue to come up is whether or not the term 'people'
in this clause refers to a collective or individual right.
You can find proponents of the all three schools,
the collective rights, sophisticated collective rights,
and individual rights interpretations practically anywhere you
choose to look.
I'm not going to jump into a deep analysis of the rights schools
in this discussion. I will instead merely assert that by the
way I'm reading it, all of the amendments address individual
rights with the possible exception of the Tenth Amendment,
which grants legal powers to the states or to the people.
I see no compelling reason to change my viewpoint. I assert,
therefore, that the Second Amendment addresses an INDIVIDUAL
right.
But still, this isn't necessarily the biggest issue.
Next, look at this: "to keep and bear arms". An elementary
analysis of the grammar and composition clearly shows two
lines of thought. They are "to keep" and "bear arms".
They can be perfectly rephrased as "to keep arms and to bear
arms" which is semantically identical to the phrase as it
appears in the 2nd Amendment.
These two separated phrases must be analyzed individually.
Taking them out of order: It has been asserted that the term
"to bear arms" has a uniquely military connotation. While I do
not believe that such use specifically excludes a non-military
connotation, I will not contest that it does in fact refer
to a primarily military meaning.
Now, "to keep arms", the edited form without reference to 'bear'
clearly did not make it into the amendment by accident. I do
not believe that anyone who has studied this document believes
that any word is in the Bill of Rights by accident. Every word
has a purpose for being there, and I assert that 'to keep arms'
is no exception.
Again, I concede that 'to bear arms' has a (mostly) uniquely
military connotation, and in this case 'to bear arms' is to do
so for the benefit of the militia and hence, the common defense.
With this in mind, I submit to you that the term 'to keep arms'
refers to keeping arms, but INDEPENDENTLY of any militia or
militia related responsibilities.
Furthermore, there is little to be argued concerning the meaning
of the word 'keep' which has only one relevant meaning, though
my Webster's dictionary shows no less than eight meanings to the word.
In brief, they are: (Edited for space)
Keep: v.
1: Observe, fulfill (not the relevant meaning)
2: Preserve, maintain (relevant)
3: Restrain, detain, reserve (relevant)
4: withhold (relevant)
5: confine (not relevant, usually refers to imprisonment)
6: To stay, to hold (not relevant)
7: To conduct, to manage (not relevant)
8: Live, lodge, sometimes used as a noun in conjunction with
living quarters associated with a castle or palace, an archaic
meaning. (not relevant)
Taking all this into consideration, while there may yet be cause
to argue whether the word "people" is intended collectively
or individually, in any event I maintain that the term "to keep
and bear arms" preserves both the right to bear arms in a militia
related capacity, and to keep arms in any other capacity.
If this position is held to be true, then the argument over
the collective or individual meaning of "people" becomes somewhat
less relevant because in any event, the right of the people,
whether collective or individual, preserves their right to
keep arms for any purpose, be it related to the militia or
otherwise.
It is also worth noting again that the authors of the Second
Amendment were cautious and studied in their approach to the
wording of the amendment. If they had meant for the amendment
to mean "the right of the people to keep arms in communal
storage for the common good and to bear arms for the militia
alone" then they would have phrased it that way. But the
phrasing is not restrictive on an individual right to keep
arms or to bear arms. Therefore, by Occam's Razor, the most
likely meaning is the correct one, and that is simply that
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed, and that there is nothing more complicated about
it than that.
Remember that one of the fundamental rules of law is that
whatever is not restricted is allowed. This has held true
since before the beginning of recorded history.
I submit that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution BOTH do not
specifically reserve the right to keep and bear arms to the people
in a collective sense only. Therefore, the liberal definition
holds power, and that is that the right is in fact an individual
right, with no specific reference to the contrary in these
documents.
It is possible that a contrary meaning could be dredged up
out of the writings of one of the founders of the Constitution
or Bill of Rights, but even if this were the case, the fact remains
that those writings are not law, while the Constitutiona and Bill
of Rights are the highest laws in the land. There is no legal
basis to accept these supposed writings over these crucial documents.
Memoirs, articles, diary entries, and personal notes are not law.
(End of this commentary.)
To all who wish to comment, and contribute, welcome. Please remember
that good behavior and civilized, dignified commentary is greatly
appreciated. I, for one, would like to see something noteworthy come
out of this thread, and I don't mean a flamefest.
Chris Johnson
Chris Johnson
Welcome back, Steve! How was your Thanksgiving?
Mine was most bodacious. The turkeys have no reason to complain
and neither do I because the menu here consisted of Prime Rib,
cooked no more than necessary to stop that annoying twitching,
as I like it!
I wanted to crawl into some of the issues you brought up
in the excerpt below:
Consider this to be a 'test case' before I commit to opening
up a fresh new debate, if we actually do that.
There are several paths from which one may attack or defend
any of the various beliefs regarding the meaning of the 2nd.
I won't attempt to mount an assault just yet on the most complex
issue, which is to find out what the writers really had in mind
because I don't feel that I yet have a suitably versatile
and readily available library of verifiable writings from them
on this subject.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia,
A well regulated militia,
of the word 'keep', despite the fact that it has several meanings.
Some are relevant, others are not. My Webster's dictionary shows
Chris Johnson
Welcome back, Steve! How was your Thanksgiving?
Mine was most bodacious. The turkeys have no reason to complain
and neither do I because the menu here consisted of Prime Rib,
cooked no more than necessary to stop that annoying twitching,
as I like it!
I wanted to crawl into some of the issues you brought up
in the excerpt below:
Consider this to be a 'test case' before I commit to opening
James Mayer
> >
> > SO does arms include biological weapons, since the logic is that the 2nd
> > amendment was passed to protect against fed gov't being too powerful?
>
Relying on the Potowmack Institute? You might as well be relying on
HCI for the truth. You will have noticed that the 5th circuit in Emerson
completely ignored their brief as I told GEE they would.
The Potowmack Institute is also known for their promoting the National
Alliance and some of the works of William Pierce, the founder of the National
Alliance and the author of the "Turner Diaries"
> For a sample of the piece:
>
> Deconstruction of the Second Amendment.
>
Here is a little sample from the Potowmack Institute:
"The Gun Lobby's Problem" and can be found in the Potomac Institute at
http://www.us.net/phoenix/lobby.html.
More recently:
http://www.potomac-inc.org/lobby.html
"Registration is a policy gun owners can support because it is in our interest.
My security as a gun owner is not clutching guns in fear but constructive
participation in the political process. I petition my government to create
legal categories for gun ownership that can disarm the lawless. That is among
the first reasons we have a government. If there are objections that
registration will enable tyrannical government to confiscate guns, the response
has to be: We need to confiscate guns from the lawless and the disloyal and we
want any confiscating to be conducted as authorized by law and not conducted by
"armed citizen guerrillas" who may be the real tyrants."
Are these the “lawless and the disloyal” of which you speak?
http://www.us.net/phoenix/
Excerpted from: Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945
"by Dr. William L. Pierce
* Jews, it should be noted, were not Germans, even if they had been born in Germany. The National
Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded full rights of
citizenship. National Socialist legislation progressively excluded Jews from key professions: teaching, the
media, the practice of law, etc. The aim was not only to free German life from an oppressive and
degenerative Jewish influence, but to persuade Jews to emigrate."
This is partly derived from the Firearms Policy Journal that, was
known as the Potomac Institute, now the Potowmack Institute, in part,
relies on material from the National Alliance (a known neo-Nazi Organization)
home page to justify some of its assertions.
Chris Johnson
James Mayer wrote:
>
>
> "The Gun Lobby's Problem" and can be found in the Potomac Institute at
> http://www.us.net/phoenix/lobby.html.
> More recently:
> http://www.potomac-inc.org/lobby.html
>
> "Registration is a policy gun owners can support because it is in our interest.
> My security as a gun owner is not clutching guns in fear but constructive
> participation in the political process. I petition my government to create
> legal categories for gun ownership that can disarm the lawless. ...
This is the greatest single fallacy embraced by gun control advocates,
that a mere LAW can disarm the lawless. If they were law abiding
citizens, yes, that might work, but by definition, these lawless
criminal types operate outside the boundaries of the law and have
already
shown their disregard for it. How can another law make them turn in
their weapons?
It's so simple a child could see it. Laws only restrain those who
will obey them, just as commands given to a dog will only be obeyed
if that dog is trained to obey them and he is of a mind to do so.
Disobedient dogs disobey commands, and criminals disobey laws because
they choose to do so.
As a result, restrictive gun laws ONLY affect law-abiding citizens,
and those are not the people that need to be kept under control.
What is needed instead is superior enforcement of the laws we have,
and positive punishment of the criminals. No jailhouse should have
a revolving door.
That is among
> the first reasons we have a government. If there are objections that
> registration will enable tyrannical government to confiscate guns, the response
> has to be: We need to confiscate guns from the lawless and the disloyal and we
> want any confiscating to be conducted as authorized by law and not conducted by
> "armed citizen guerrillas" who may be the real tyrants."
If there were actually a way to confiscate guns ONLY from the lawless,
I'd agree that it was a good idea, but you will NEVER succeed in doing
this by passing a law. Nor is there any sense to confiscating guns
from
those who are not criminals and have no criminal intent, unless those
who draft the laws have a deeper purpose which is served by
confiscation.
I see the entire anti-gun mindset as a trojan horse. Bring it within
the
gates and see what happens.
Don't go there.
CJ
>
Steve Krulick
No; I'm referring him and others to an essay by Kenneth Rowland,
Ph. D., Ohio State University, M.A., College of William and
Mary. Associate Dean, Joint Military Intelligence College,
Washington, DC.
That the Potowmack Institute posts the essay on their site is a
convenience; had it been posted elsewhere, I'd list THAT URL as
well. For example, had it been equally available at a site run
by the Joint Military Intelligence College, would Mayer have
groused "Relying on the Joint Military Intelligence College?"
IF I found the URL by using Google, would Mayer have complained
"Relying on Google for locating support material?"
The PI also has copies of the Militia Act of 1792 and the
Returns of Militia and various other documents and source
material easily available in one area; when I cite the MA1792,
will Mayer moan, "Relying on the Potowmack Institute for your
material?" No, Mayer, I'm relying on the AUTHORS of the MA1792
for my material; the PI is just one convenient site where it is
posted.
Mayer is merely side-stepping the points Rowland makes by ad
homineming the messenger, whether me or the PI. This is a bogus
avoidance of dealing with the essential arguments that I have
made, that Judge Green confirms, and that Rowland supports with
extensive documentation. For example, why does Mayer never
respond to the unambiguous and educated comments of Judge Green
in Aymette (his usual response is to post the irrelevant and
illiterate Nunn v. State and Cockrum v. State), or to what
Madison said in HIS OWN draft of the Amen?
Mayer doesn't understand the difference between someone having
original and collected material ON their site for convenience of
the researcher, and the personal opinions of the site's owner.
> You might as well be relying on
> HCI for the truth.
Why? What connection does Rowland have with HCI? Does Mayer know
of any? And this is, anyway, a classic ad hominem slur, where
the evil (boo! hiss!) HCI is dragged in gratuitously when no
logical connection between what Rowland SAYS and what the HCI is
has been established. Mayer can't deal with Rowland's evidence
at all, so he ignores it and pulls out a convenient and
side-stepping bogeyman, HCI, to add to PI in his slur parade.
> You will have noticed that the 5th circuit in Emerson
> completely ignored their brief as I told GEE they would.
Irrelevant. The issue was about Rowland's essay on the use of
the phrase "bear arms." Mayer brings this up with no connection,
but just more ad hominem side-stepping.
It seems Mayer couldn't be bothered to make it all the way to
the end of the decision to see that Cummings's ruling was
actually REVERSED; and that 922(g)(8) still does NOT violate the
2nd or 5th Amen; and that pages of dicta from two hoplophile
guys with "enough guns between us to start a small revolution in
a South American county" (although it could have been written by
Halbrook for all the one-sided and erroneous nonsense it
includes... "to bear arms in a coat" being one of the most
provably laughable examples of sheer embarrassing ignorance) has
NO legal bearing on ANY court anywhere; and basically just being
a sop to hoplophiles for rhetorical purposes; and going against
long-standing policy that commenting on constitutional matters
that DOESN'T affect the ruling outcome is irresponsible and
irrelevant, as the third judge pointed out.
> The Potowmack Institute is also known for their promoting the National
> Alliance and some of the works of William Pierce, the founder of the National
> Alliance and the author of the "Turner Diaries"
Bogus lies by Mayer that has been shown to be false many times
before; "promoting" is Mayer's loaded and inaccurate term that
implies what isn't so. On an earlier incarnation of the PI site,
for persons seeking a detailed cite in the original German of
material relating to Nazi gun laws, Ernst posted the address of
the NA, the title and price of the book, which persons had to go
to directly IF they wanted the original source material. THIS is
NOT promotion, or an "ad" as Mayer once characterized it; there
is no indication that PI received any money from NA or a
percentage of sales; as far as I can see, it's like MY posting
the Rowland URL at PI, being a mere convenience for someone
wanting info. I ALSO publish the URLS to the SAF and guncite
when the material warrants; does THAT make me a SUPPORTER or
PROMOTER of either site?
Mayer doesn't understand the difference between posting WHERE
one can get research material and ENDORSING or PROMOTING it!
> > For a sample of the piece:
> >
> > Deconstruction of the Second Amendment.
> >
As usual, Mayer snips away the material he can't address, much
less refute, and goes on to side-step with more ad hominem.
> Here is a little sample from the Potowmack Institute:
>
> "The Gun Lobby's Problem" and can be found in the Potomac Institute at
> http://www.us.net/phoenix/lobby.html.
> More recently:
> http://www.potomac-inc.org/lobby.html
>
> "Registration is a policy gun owners can support because it is in our interest.
> My security as a gun owner is not clutching guns in fear but constructive
> participation in the political process. I petition my government to create
> legal categories for gun ownership that can disarm the lawless. That is among
> the first reasons we have a government. If there are objections that
> registration will enable tyrannical government to confiscate guns, the response
> has to be: We need to confiscate guns from the lawless and the disloyal and we
> want any confiscating to be conducted as authorized by law and not conducted by
> "armed citizen guerrillas" who may be the real tyrants."
That's Ernst's opinion. I agree with some of it, but THAT isn't
the point I was making or the reason for posting the Rowland
material that Mayer still ignores. When will Mayer deal with IT?
> Are these the “lawless and the disloyal” of which you speak?
> http://www.us.net/phoenix/
I don't know; that URL leads to nowhere in particular
> Excerpted from: Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945
>
> "by Dr. William L. Pierce
>
> * Jews, it should be noted, were not Germans, even if they had been born in Germany. The National
> Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded full rights of
> citizenship. National Socialist legislation progressively excluded Jews from key professions: teaching, the
> media, the practice of law, etc. The aim was not only to free German life from an oppressive and
> degenerative Jewish influence, but to persuade Jews to emigrate."
Mayer excerpts a very brief, selective, and irrelevant to MY
post cite. What IS his point, other than ad hominem guilt by
(very distant, if any) association?
*I* have nothing to do with Pierce, I doubt Rowland does, and I
don't see how Ernst or PI does. Why is Mayer bringing up this
bogeyman side-step?
> This is partly derived from the Firearms Policy Journal that, was
> known as the Potomac Institute, now the Potowmack Institute, in part,
> relies on material from the National Alliance (a known neo-Nazi Organization)
> home page to justify some of its assertions.
RELIES on? JUSTIFY? These are merely subjective and blatant
assertions, using loaded words, without any evidence at all. IF
*I* post, as I have, a bogus quote attributed to Hitler, in
order to show it IS bogus, am I endorsing Hitler? IF *I* post,
as I have, a section from Halbrook, to show I disagree with it,
am *I* endorsing Halbrook? Unless Mayer can show specific
ENDORSEMENT of Pierce's SPECIFIC views BY Ernst, what has he
proven? As usual, nothing.
Chad Amberg
> > > Amen as used up to 1790? Go to:
> > > http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappa.html
> > >
> >
> > Relying on the Potowmack Institute?
>
> No; I'm referring him and others to an essay by Kenneth Rowland,
> Ph. D., Ohio State University, M.A., College of William and
> Mary. Associate Dean, Joint Military Intelligence College,
> Washington, DC.
>
> That the Potowmack Institute posts the essay on their site is a
> convenience; had it been posted elsewhere, I'd list THAT URL as
> well. For example, had it been equally available at a site run
> by the Joint Military Intelligence College, would Mayer have
> groused "Relying on the Joint Military Intelligence College?"
>
> IF I found the URL by using Google, would Mayer have complained
> "Relying on Google for locating support material?"
Actually, the Potowmack Institute used to be called the Potomac Institute,
and was trying to pass itself off as the REAL Potomac Institute for Policy
Studies, a Virginia political thinktank. (www.potomakinstitute.com) The
link you refer to is apparently one guy running out of a post office box.
Thats a lot different than a google search.
Scott Miller
In article <3C008B09...@cfl.rr.com>, Chris Johnson <cmjo...@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:
>To all who wish to comment, and contribute, welcome. Please remember
>that good behavior and civilized, dignified commentary is greatly
>appreciated. I, for one, would like to see something noteworthy come
>out of this thread, and I don't mean a flamefest.
Well, that rules me out, I guess...
;-)
I'll just watch for a while.
--Scott Miller
Scott Miller
In article <9tqlqc$tr0$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, James Mayer
<jf...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote:
>"Registration is a policy gun owners can support because it is in our
interest.
>
>My security as a gun owner is not clutching guns in fear but constructive
>
>participation in the political process. I petition my government to create
>
>legal categories for gun ownership that can disarm the lawless. That is
>among
>the first reasons we have a government. If there are objections that
>registration will enable tyrannical government to confiscate guns, the
>response
>has to be: We need to confiscate guns from the lawless AND THE DISLOYAL
>and we
>want any confiscating to be conducted as authorized by law and not conducted
>by
>"armed citizen guerrillas" who may be the real tyrants."
Interesting.
The disloyal shall be disarmed as well. Hmm. I wonder who shall make the
distinction?
Under Clinton, conservatives would be disarmed. Now, with Bush, it is the
Liberals' turn to be disarmed.
--Scott Miller
Scott Miller
In article <3C011993...@cfl.rr.com>, Chris Johnson <cmjo...@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:
>This is the greatest single fallacy embraced by gun control advocates,
>that a mere LAW can disarm the lawless. If they were law abiding
>citizens, yes, that might work, but by definition, these lawless
>criminal types operate outside the boundaries of the law and have
>already
>shown their disregard for it. How can another law make them turn in
>their weapons?
They have such faith in government and large bureaucracies that they think
words written on paper can actually create physical realities--poof!--just like
that. I'm waiting for them to make a law lowering the friction of air so cars
can get better gas mileage to help the auto industry meet CAFE standards....
--Scott Miller
DF Beck
"Scott Miller" <colob...@aol.comNRA> wrote in message
news:20011127012315...@nso-mq.aol.com...
Oh come on Scott, stand up for what you believe in.
Get in there and mix it up. Toss out the kind of insults that will give
Steve's dog a complex...
Just kidding <wink>
I became involved in the NG because I enjoy debating. I would like to have
seen the discussion stay on a even keel. I would say that it really takes
some prodding to get my ire up, especially when it involves an interaction
with someone I don't know, someone that exists only in cyberspace
but.....Steve K. is the exception!
I've lurked through almost every thread since 11/1 and posted on a very few
occasions and found very quickly that anyone who disagrees with Steve's
source material and Steve's opinion has, according to Steve, a problem with
'comprehension', among other things, and then is subjected to the usual
condescending comments. As this tactic is repeated over and over it is not
at all surprising that a flame war breaks out.
When I was in college, a debate was where one person presented one view and
someone else presented an opposing view. In the course of this exchange,
each side offered supporting evidence. The opponent would then deconstruct
the supporting evidence. An example would be a gun control proponent citing
Kellerman and his '43 times more likely' study. My response would, as an
advocate, of course be that Kellerman's study was flawed due to:
(1) miscalculating firearm fatalities vs. non-fatal defensive use and,
(2) bias in presentation due to the fact his study was undertaken at the
behest of the CDC which presented such slanted material that their funding
was yanked and,
(3) Kellerman's study has never been peer reviewed as he will not release
his notes.
Steve's response would be, and I paraphrase here, "where'd you learn to
read...you have a reading comprehension problem....your sources are
bogus...here, read my 375th posting of 'War and Peace' and accept it as if
it were God speaking to Moses through the burning bush because I AM THE
GREAT AND POWERFUL STEVE KRULICK AND NONE OF YOU ARE EVEN WORTHY OF SHARING
MY CYBERSPACE!!! NOW, BE GONE AND NEVER DARKEN MY MONITOR WITH YOUR IDIOTIC,
UNEDUCATED, UNSUBSTANTIATED, HEARSAY AGAIN OR I, THE GREAT AND POWERFUL
STEVE KRULICK SHALL SMITE YOU WITH MY SUPERIOR INTELLECT. BE GONE NOW SPARKY
AND POST NO MORE....or something to that effect.
Now, that's just my opinion.
I apologize to preaching to the choir. I'd have stated the same to Steve had
he been here.
I'm probably 'in for it' when he gets back but we all have our cross to
bear. It's the killfile for me, boys.
Good day Gentlemen,
Beck
(Disclaimer)
VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS EDITORIAL DO NOT NECESSARILY EXPRESS THE VIEWS OF
OTHER CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS NEWS GROUP.
but I bet they do....
Scott Miller
In article <9u0v97$6kp$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, "DF Beck"
<d...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS EDITORIAL DO NOT NECESSARILY EXPRESS THE VIEWS
>OF
>OTHER CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS NEWS GROUP.
>
>but I bet they do....
Well, yeah. But that goes without saying...
:)
Scott Miller
Spot
>Date: 11/27/2001 1:15 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20011127021532...@nso-mq.aol.com>
>
>
>In article <3C011993...@cfl.rr.com>, Chris Johnson
><cmjo...@cfl.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>This is the greatest single fallacy embraced by gun control advocates,
>>that a mere LAW can disarm the lawless. If they were law abiding
>>citizens, yes, that might work, but by definition, these lawless
>>criminal types operate outside the boundaries of the law and have
>>already
>>shown their disregard for it. How can another law make them turn in
>>their weapons?
>
>They have such faith in government and large bureaucracies that they think
>words written on paper can actually create physical realities-
Are you talking about the former conservatives who used question Big
Government, but now trust it implicitly as long as a Republican is in charge?
Spot
>From: colob...@aol.comNRA (Scott Miller)
>Date: 11/27/2001 1:11 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20011127021123...@nso-mq.aol.com>
Under Clinton, conservatives howled at every disclosure and revelation,
but under Bush they don't mind secret trials, withheld evidence, refusals to
release reports and an absolute veil of secrecy.
Oh, and don't forget our resident Champion of States Rights now telling
states than their voter-approved laws are meaningless, that We In Big
Government know what is best for you.
me
You mean a republican who doesnt stuff cigars up womens pussies, commit perjury,
get disbarred from practicing in front of the supreme court, and sell secrets to the chinese
and rent out the white house bedrooms all the while getting blowjobs from interns
in the oval office ON OUR TIME and then providing them a cushy government
job to hush them up.....then the answer is YES we do.
>
>
>
James Mayer
> >From: colob...@aol.comNRA (Scott Miller)
Like some liberal judge did out in California?