"flipper" <flipper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:nus0u3d7gbfn3dtcstiuk18rthnhicjpca@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:54:55 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"flipper" <flipper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:23s0u3tenhrh3hs2qrv2bjc1l4uur5kjkg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:46:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"keithr" <keithr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>news:47df906a$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>> "Patrick Turner" <info@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>> news:47DF8796.C9FDF1CB@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war of
>>>>>> Independance?
>>>>>
>>>>> not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the rage.
>>>>> Come
>>>>> in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the
bison
>>>>
>>>>**Correct. The Springfield Rifle was invented by the North, during the
>>>>Civil
>>>>War. It was arguably the first really mass produced item, built of
>>>>sophisticated mechanical equipment. So im****tant was this item and
it's
>>>>manufacturing system, that the factory was booby trapped, so complete
>>>>destruction would occur, if it had any chance of falling into the
hands
>>>>of
>>>>the South. The Springfield Rifle was credited as being, in no small
>>>>part,
>>>>for the fact that the North prevailed during that, very dark, time in
US
>>>>history. It has also left it's mark on the US psyche. Many Americans
>>>>seem
>>>>to
>>>>think that gun owning is both sane and a right for individuals,
despite
>>>>the
>>>>very clear wording in the 2nd Amendment.
>>>
>>> Yes, the very clear wording of an individual right.
>>
>>**Wrong. The clear wording involves the term: "...well regulated
>>militia.."
>
> Separate clause.
**The meaning is clear enough. The US Foers refer to a "well regulated
militia" as part of the rights to gun owner****p.
>
>>American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment.
>
> Nope, they don't 'ignore' it at all. They just know how to read
> English, such as "the right of the people..."
**And yet they ignore the well regulated militia part.
>
> They also understand the origin of the right, common law precedents,
> the Federalist Papers writing on the matter, the form of government
> established by the Constitution, and U.S. history.
**They should understand the consistent and constant subversion of the law
by groups like the NRA, who act on behalf of the gun pushers.
>
>
>> They
>>also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun
>>loons
>>each and every year.
>
> Even if that were true it's irrelevant as the authors of the text had
> no crystal balls with which to peer into 2008.
**Of course. Which is why the US Constitution can be altered to reflect
the
reality of life. I suspect the Founding Fathers might alter that
Amendment,
given the situation which exists today:
* The US is no longer occupied by a vicious foreign power.
* Savage natives no longer present a threat.
* Police and military forces are well equipped, organised and funded. In
fact, the US military is the most potent on the planet. It is capable of
obliterating every armed force on the planet.
* Supermarkets supply the vast quantity of animal protein.
* Guns have reload times measured in milliseconds, rather than tens of
seconds.
* Accuracy of modern, high power weapons is significantly superior to
those
available several hundred years ago.
* Concealable weapons are cheap, plentiful and readily available.
Perhaps it is time to re-visit the 2nd Amendment, given the realities of
life in the 21st Century. The US Founding Fathers thoughtfully provided a
method for this to be accomplished.
Trevor Wilson
|
