"flipper" <flipper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fuo2u3tsvnjl8fdt73dtenqekv5j7jbsc1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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."
**As part of a well regulated militia.
>
> 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.
**And yet, the state may alter those protections. Witness: The Patriot
Act.
>
> 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.
**With the exception of those subject to the Patriot Act, of course.
>
>
>> 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."
**I'm afraid it is not that clear. There are two different versions of the
2nd Amendment. Given the times that the Amendment was written, it is clear
that the Founding Fathers referred to the necessity of an armed militia.
>
>
>>>>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.
**I just deal in facts.
>
>
>>> 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'
**I never said I was. I said that the NRA was subverting the law, 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:
>
> 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 meaning is under some considerable debate by many people. It would
seem that the time has come to re-write that Amendment to reflect what is
truly meant and, indeed, desired by the people.
>
>>* The US is no longer occupied by a vicious foreign power.
>
> And it wasn't in 1789 either.
**It was still under threat. The US military was in it's infancy. The
British armed forces were substantial.
>
>>* Savage natives no longer present a threat.
>
> Does the 'natural origin' of the attacker make a difference to self
> defense?
**It does, when there is a well funded, well armed police force, along
with
an even better funded and armed military force available. Neither existed
several hundred years ago.
Why, in your world, is someone 'free' to defend themselves
> from "savage natives" but not from savage anyone else?
**People are free to defend themselves. I do, however, challenge the
delusion that a gun is a useful means of self defence in the 21st Century.
In the US, for instance, 10,000 people are murdered via gunshot each year,
whilst around 200 are killed in so-called 'Defensive Gun Uses' (DGUs). It
would seem that in order to save around 200 lives each year, around 10,000
must die. I'll hand that equation over to the statisticians to mull over.
>
>>* Police and military forces are well equipped, organised and funded.
>
> As provided for by the Constitution that was in play in 1789 as well.
**Except that they were not, by any standards, well equipped and funded
back
then.
>
> 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.
**Seems like overkill to me, but it is what it is.
>
>>* Supermarkets supply the vast quantity of animal protein.
>
> Your choice.
**Not only mine. It is the overwhelming choice of the vast majority of
Americans.
>
> Freedom means someone else has their choice.
**Indeed. The inhabitants of all the other Western, developed nations have
the freedom to walk the streets, secure in the knowledge that they are
more
than 10 times less likely to be shot to death than an American is. That is
a
nice freedom to have.
>
>>* 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.
**They weren't by any stretch as concealable as modern handguns are. Nor
as
reliable, fast to reload, nor as accurate and, possibly more im****tantly,
no
where near as deadly.
>
>>
>>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.
**The existing text seems clear enough to most people. They refer to a
"well
regulated militia". They do not refer to some good ole boys wandering
around in 4X4s shooting up the landscape.
Trevor Wilson
|
