It's specifically stated.

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!