Re: Err...

Post #57,589 by deSitter 10/18/02 3:33:36 PM Reply	Re: Err... "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.." That is what is meant by a RIGHT - something "self-evident" the way, say, an axiom in geometry is self-evident (and not derived from something simpler). The Revolution and the Government later constituted cannot exist without these. In contrast, the "Bill of Rights", which might be called a set of reasonable starter amendments to a document that was assumed from the outset to be dynamic, was the result of squabbling and infighting as the anti-Federalists demanded that citizens have a written-down charter of freedoms the gov't could not rescind. The Bill was an afterthought. Only at the end of a long period of hot debate did Jefferson, and at his urging Madison, support it. Generally it was assumed that the things in the Bill were explicitly granted by the individual state constitutions. -drl
Post #57,597 by imric 10/18/02 4:09:38 PM Reply	Shall not be infringed? Pretty clear. You want to infringe on that right. Funny, I don't recall a right to ingest any substance you want shall not be infringed. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #57,600 by Ashton 10/18/02 4:24:41 PM Reply	That right is self-evident also With the exception of a single barely-conceivable situation wherein: there is One Homeland Security guard watching each mouth 24/7. Ditto suicide and a litany of other acts unpreventable by Any 'Authority'. An unenforceable law is bogus on the face of it: precisely! as the case re any coerced loyalty oath. That our statute books are filled with such, merely illustrates the miniscule level of comprehension of all parties involved, and their rank hypocrisy - right after dumbth. Ashton
Post #57,657 by boxley 10/18/02 6:43:18 PM Reply	yup in the part that states all rights not named herein are reserved to the people and the states respectively. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #57,694 by deSitter 10/18/02 8:38:01 PM Reply	Re: Shall not be infringed? I call it a PRIVILEGE because there is a tacit assumption that a free and healthy people will honor their responsibility without much fuss - say a few poached animals - and not open fire on people shopping. Do you think driving is a privilege? Of course, because it's dangerous. Hell FREE SPEECH is a privilege - there are libel laws. At some point it's just words. The Document says you can own firearms, and it stops at that. It doesn't say regulation of dangerous things cannot be done in the public interest, to the extent the "several states" deem necessary. Traceable ammunition is clearly in the public interest. -drl
Post #57,701 by Yendor 10/18/02 8:54:14 PM Reply	Re: Shall not be infringed? Traceable ammunition is clearly in the public interest. This is your claim. I disagree with it. One hundred and ten per cent. Reasons already stated. I don't think this is in anyone's interest. -YendorMike What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about? - Jimmy Buffett, June 20, 2002, Tinley Park
Post #57,705 by deSitter 10/18/02 9:01:03 PM Reply	To the Poles! And Ashton - aux barricades! -drl
Post #57,772 by Brandioch 10/19/02 12:38:38 AM Reply	You call it a privilege, the Constitution calls it a right. I'll stick to the 2nd Amendment. Thank you very much. Do you think driving is a privilege? Depends upon what I'm driving and where and whether I'm intoxicated or not and so forth. Hell FREE SPEECH is a privilege - there are libel laws. No. Free speech is a right. But, because it is a right, does NOT mean that anything you say cannot be actionable under law. Just as gun ownership is a right, but that doesn't mean you can shoot anyone you want to. Traceable ammunition is clearly in the public interest. You keep claiming this DESPITE it being shown how the criminals would quickly avoid any links to themselves AND being shown how it would turn currently legal activities into illegal activities. Again, we SHOULD have learned this lesson from Prohibition. It doesn't say regulation of dangerous things cannot be done in the public interest, to the extent the "several states" deem necessary. Just as we outlawed the dangerous substance of demon rum. And firmly established the Mafia. Because it is LEGAL to pass some laws does NOT make such laws INTELLIGENT nor EFFECTIVE.
Post #57,784 by deSitter 10/19/02 2:07:25 AM Reply	Re: You call it a privilege, the Constitution calls it You talk as if the world is crawling with master criminals. It isn't - most crooks are plain stupid. Also - blindly mouthing the words of the Constitution without understanding what makes it alive, is worse than ignoring it in some ways. I pointed out that the very people who wrote the damn thing engaged in a bitter struggle to encapsulate the idea of a living, changing Federation according to their own predelictions and level of suspicion. Yet you simply state "it's a right" as if that made the problem disappear. The reason the Consititution is malleable is that the framers understood that things were certain to change and the government must be able to adapt itself to changing needs within defining limits. -drl
Post #57,789 by Ashton 10/19/02 3:41:49 AM Reply	I agree that was their vision. They might even have conceived of.. periods of fainthearted uninvolved people / or ravening Yahoos administering the Republic (with trepidation, we can assume). The point was for the Republic to survive but NOT... under ANY condition imaginable! ergo: the stated condition(s) for revolution. If we accept that today, persons of the calibre of the founders are not the ones in charge [is that even debatable?] then this Sterling document still applies even unto the dissolution of a present administration, one which trends toward an Authoritarian Theological state - thus may even lead to a need for this extreme action. In this present environment, it is reasonable to expect that which you are disappointed to see - a more formatory, more rigid interpretation rather than the more flexible one we would expect and would choose: were this a nation of informed, participating citizens whose leaders are capable of leadership and wise restraint simultaneously. More simply: we can survive fucked leadership.. to some (unknown) degree, for a time - even with non-participating sheep. But 'Rights' during an arid period must be asserted more forcibly and described more simply - in opposition to the banal cant of the Authoritarians and opportunists (who are ever amongst us in any age). My take, Ashton
Post #57,792 by imric 10/19/02 6:21:56 AM Reply	Then get it repealed. That's the built-in flexibility. Don't hold your breath, though. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #57,898 by Brandioch 10/19/02 10:17:24 PM Reply	Then have it changed. Yes, I am stating that it is a right. And that is all I need to state. Until the Constitution itself is changed.
Post #57,673 by Brandioch 10/18/02 7:13:30 PM Reply	It's specifically stated. What the exact reasons are for it being specifically stated...... Never-the-less, it is specifically stated. As a right. You called it a privilege. But it is documented as a right. And so we get to the core of the matter. Gun control. Cause guns are a privilege, not a right.
Post #57,686 by deSitter 10/18/02 8:22:54 PM Reply	Re: It's specifically stated. This is basically the same argument that the Federalists and the anti-Federalists had (central vs. local authority) and it seems as if I'm arguing for the former - I'm not. Control of this would be local - so say Montana with a very low crime rate could have rather more liberal laws, while in likely targets for nefarious deeds the laws would be more Draconian. That is the beauty of local govt. And let's think of it this way - the specific reason people have the "right" to bear arms is so that they can fend off an incipient tyranny, which the anti-Federalists were deeply suspicious of - in that case the traceability of bullets is of no interest. Because one would assume that local people would want to use local bullets, states would want to make their own so that they would have access to them in an emergency. Of course you're welcomed to buy them from neighbors or on www.ammo.gov. -drl
Post #57,698 by Yendor 10/18/02 8:49:02 PM Reply	Re: It's specifically stated. And let's think of it this way - the specific reason people have the "right" to bear arms is so that they can fend off an incipient tyranny, which the anti-Federalists were deeply suspicious of - in that case the traceability of bullets is of no interest. Worse than it being "of no interest" -- let's just say that Civil War 2 breaks out. This time, the side that I'm on (whichever side that is) loses, but I survive. The other side takes some slugs from their dead soldiers who I shot while they were coming down my street. They remove the slugs, and do your AmmoTracing thing, and they trace 'em back to me (forget, for the moment, that I wouldn't be dumb enough to use trackable ammo in this instance.) I get a couple of knocks on my door in the middle of the night, and it's The Other Side, with a house call from Sir Reaper. Because one would assume that local people would want to use local bullets... Who is "one"? I think that this whole discussion we've been having shows that you are the lone person subscribing to the "one" here, Ross. The rest of us are rather adamantly saying no. -YendorMike What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about? - Jimmy Buffett, June 20, 2002, Tinley Park
Post #57,706 by deSitter 10/18/02 9:02:37 PM Reply	Re: It's specifically stated. Who the hell is going to do that in a Civil War? I'll be looking for beer and coffee and maybe shoes. -drl
Post #57,743 by mmoffitt 10/18/02 10:47:57 PM Reply	Can we all read the law? The Courts have been consistent on this at least since 1939 (US vs. Miller). Unless the firearm in question "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." And before you go off on the "we are all militia" road to nowhere, the Court also said in that decision that the Congress is charged "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." Or are we all "States" too? Perhaps we're all "Congress"? Geez, there is *NO Constitutional Right to Private Firearm Ownership!* Got it? Good. Now, let's move on. [link\|http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+307+u!2Es!2E+174!3A]!28[group+edited!3A]!7C[level++case+citation!3A]!29/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?\|Maybe this time will do the trick for the remaining doubters] bcnu, Mikem
Post #57,750 by imric 10/18/02 11:16:12 PM Reply	That interpretation IS contrary to who that right was written for. The people. Or do you really believe it was to prevent our armies from being wholly foreign mercenaries? Not it's purpose. There were, and are, many bad interpretaions of the law. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #57,757 by Yendor 10/18/02 11:42:54 PM Reply	Not to mention... ...that the Bush Administration has changed the official Presidential Stance on this topic to an interpretation as one of "the people do have the individual right to own firearms." No, I don't have a place to quote this from; was heard on the radio in the springtime. And that's not fodder for a "Do you believe everything you hear on the radio?" question; it's admitted as second-hand information. -YendorMike What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about? - Jimmy Buffett, June 20, 2002, Tinley Park
Post #57,762 by Brandioch 10/19/02 12:10:08 AM Reply	I read that and I don't get what you claim. To me, it said that the defendants were illegally transporting a weapon. The defendants claimed that their 2nd Amendment right allowed them to do so because any law saying it was illegal to transport weapons would be un-Constitutional. So the USSC said that the 2nd Amendment did not mean that you could transport any weapon, any where, without following the federal and local restrictions on such transportation. Specifically, in this case, a sawed off shotgun being transported across state lines. No where in that link do I see anything saying that private ownership is NOT a right specifically stated in the Constitution.
Post #58,087 by mmoffitt 10/21/02 5:03:38 PM Reply	Simpler form. If the firearm in question doesn't have some reasonable relationship to the State's militia, Amendment 2 does not apply. See above post, that is the majority's official ruling, not mine. If you read the Amendment in context, if you read every subsequent ruling by the USSC, the inescapable conclusion is that Amendment 2 refers to the States' rights to build their own militias and arm them. Nothing more.

Welcome to IWETHEY!