On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:59:40 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"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.
Yes, it is. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
be infringed."
The right ---- an explicit acknowledgement of it's pre-existence.
"Rights" are inherent to the people and not subject to the convenience
of the State. In fact, that rights are usually INconvenient to the
State is why explicit protections are stated.
The people ---- which universally means the people both individually
and collectively, as in the right of "the people" peaceably to
assemble or the right of "the people" to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects.
> The US Foers refer to a "well regulated
>militia" as part of the rights to gun owner****p.
It is 'referred to' in a separate clause but the rights declaration is
explicit. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed."
>>>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.
Repeating a falsehood is still a falsehood.
>> 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.
You are not 'the law'
>>> 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:
What you think they 'might do' is also irrelevant. The fact of the
matter is they wrote it and unless amended it's meaning stands as
intended.
>* The US is no longer occupied by a vicious foreign power.
And it wasn't in 1789 either.
>* Savage natives no longer present a threat.
Does the 'natural origin' of the attacker make a difference to self
defense? Why, in your world, is someone 'free' to defend themselves
from "savage natives" but not from savage anyone else?
>* Police and military forces are well equipped, organised and funded.
As provided for by the Constitution that was in play in 1789 as well.
In fact, that the Constitution provides for calling forth the militia,
arming the militia, and the maintenance of Armies and Navies
exemplifies the folly of suggesting an 'amendment' was needed for
'arming' the (organized) militia that the Constitution already
provided for.
> In
>fact, the US military is the most potent on the planet. It is capable of
>obliterating every armed force on the planet.
Good.
>* Supermarkets supply the vast quantity of animal protein.
Your choice.
Freedom means someone else has their choice.
>* Guns have reload times measured in milliseconds, rather than tens of
>seconds.
Good.
>* Accuracy of modern, high power weapons is significantly superior to
those
>available several hundred years ago.
Good.
>* Concealable weapons are cheap, plentiful and readily available.
They fought a war with them in 1776 and, as for 'readily available',
virtually everyone had them.
>
>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.
That would be the proper approach rather than inventing a pile of B.S.
about what the existing text means.
>Trevor Wilson
>
|
