| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ms My Rights" |
| Date: |
08 Dec 2006 01:45:16 PM |
| Object: |
The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
If this gets tested to the Supreme Court and we lose, at least we'll
know we've lost our freedom and our country for good. Then it would be
time for the states that still wanted to be free, to start pushing for
legal seccession in the courts.
_http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtml?s=ic_
(http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtm
l?s=ic)
Dec. 7, 2006Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for
the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment
right to bear arms
applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on
handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere.
Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in
unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the
Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people
or only to "a well
regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual
gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the
issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case
in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court
disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a
challenge to California's ban
on assault weapons.
In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city
residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to
own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime
neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns
but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all
pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but
a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not
clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim,
the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have
had the authority to ban
all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second
Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It
doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's
argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in
the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however,
with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a
well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right
to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no
longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase
any part of the Constitution?"
--
Have you watched America: Freedom to Fascism yet?
Free video: http://tinyurl.com/snr7b
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS, YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR
RULERS! If the government wasn't allowed to initiate force, the vote
wouldn't be that important. It's only important because they can.
.
|
|
| User: "Jim Bianchi" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
11 Dec 2006 04:32:55 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:12:25 -0600, Bob wrote:
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12np10cbv0ugfb3@corp.supernews.com...
The right to bear arms exists and shall not be infringed. The details of
what weapons are legal are the responsibility of the state. The right is
there.
From federal infringement. That is all the Constitution and the BOR does,
it
limits the power of what the feds can do. Take the 2nd, the feds can make
no
law infringing on the individual right to bear arms.
The state on the other hand can regulate in this arena, unless the state
constitution limits state action in this regard.
Can a state also limit the right of a free press?
Not legally, since the 1st has been 'incorporated' to include states
in the union.
--
jimbo@sonic.net
"There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary, and those who don't."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 06:44:24 PM |
|
|
Bob uecker wrote:
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:neZeh.4934$a14.2127@newsfe24.lga...
Bob uecker wrote:
"The thrust of the unanimous opinion in Miller is that the right to bear
arms, like the right to free speech, is fundamental, but not unlimited.
The First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell "fire!" in a
crowded theater. The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to
own a bazooka or a tank. This is a reasonable position. Gun control
advocates should stop misrepresenting it. "
This statement is fallacious. Let's dissect:
1) "right ..., is fundamental, but not unlimited"
No right is unlimited. Thomas Jefferson made this crystal clear:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's
will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
http://www.whatquote.com/quotes/Thomas-Jefferson/37799-Rightful-liberty-is-.htm
2) "The First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell 'fire!' in
a crowded theater"
No amendment gives any right. The Amendments are "declaratory and
restrictive clauses". See the Preamble to the Amendments:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment I, among other things, prohibits Congress from enacting
legislation that abridges the freedom of speech. Nothing more, nothing
less.
So, can someone yell "fire!" in an empty theater? Sure they can. So, why
can't they (capricious) yell "fire!" in a crowded theater? Because doing
so would infringe on the equal rights of others -- others' rights to be
safe and secure. None of this has /ANYTHING/ to do with Amendment I.
Its a simple example of the limitation of free speech. Free speech cant be
the cause of physical harm or violate other codes like causing a riot that
may insue from the scream of "fire."
I strongly suggest that all enlightened people dismiss (with extreme
prejudice I might add) this 'yell fire in a crowded theater' notion.
3) "The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to own..."
Again, Amendments don't give rights. See item 2 above.
So we have no rights? rigghht. They just called it the Bill of Rights cause
it sounded snappy.
I didn't say that.
I very clearly stated that the Amendments don't give rights.
Read the Preamble. The so-called "Bill of Rights" is a nick-name (and a
misnomer at that). They are the Amendments to the Constitution, and
should be called as such.
4) "the right to own a bazooka or a tank. This is a reasonable position."
The Federal government has not been delegated the authority to control the
individual ownership of bazookas, tanks, or similar. Legislation is based
on delegated power from the people to the government. It doesn't matter
if it is a 'reasonable position' or not.
Tell that to the ATF, and FBI, and US Military.
Every chance I get.
Although I'm more concerned about the legislative powers as opposed to
executive, which the 3 you mention are subject to.
If there is no delegated power, then there can be no legislation. If such
legislation is desired by the People, then the People *MUST* delegate the
power -- there is no other way.
The right to bear arms exists and shall not be infringed. The details of
what weapons are legal are the responsibility of the state. The right is
there.
Yes, the right is there, but not because of Amendment II. The right
exists /independent/ of Amendment II. Amendment II could be scratched
off the page, and the right to keep and bear arms still exists.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 06:51:53 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:457BB53A.663EF964@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob uecker wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165609066.371520.98630@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Ms My Rights wrote:
If this gets tested to the Supreme Court and we lose, at least we'll
know we've lost our freedom and our country for good. Then it would be
time for the states that still wanted to be free, to start pushing for
legal seccession in the courts.
The scary part is that the reality of this happening is very very
possible. Criminals will be loving that ruling.
Why? They already have easy access to guns.
Well, because then their victims will not.
_http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtml?s=ic_
(http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtm
l?s=ic)
Dec. 7, 2006Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for
the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment
right to bear arms
applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on
handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere.
Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in
unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the
Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all
people
or only to "a well
regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual
gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the
issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first
case
in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court
disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a
challenge to California's ban
on assault weapons.
In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city
residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to
own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime
neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns
but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all
pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but
a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not
clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd
Kim,
the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of
Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have
had the authority to ban
all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second
Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It
doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's
argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in
the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however,
with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a
well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the
right
to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no
longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase
any part of the Constitution?"
The heading states Milita AND the Right to bear arms....pretty simple to
understand. This game if semantics is simply anti-gun fanatics
desperation.
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those anymore, do
we?
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we still have a
lot of those.
And if you look at the Miller decision, there are numerous quotes about
the
makeup of militias. Not one of them mention *women*.
Then maybe you should check under the law, and then consider that it is
against the law to discriminate based on sex.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
12 Dec 2006 10:09:33 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob uecker wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165609066.371520.98630@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Ms My Rights wrote:
If this gets tested to the Supreme Court and we lose, at least we'll
know we've lost our freedom and our country for good. Then it would be
time for the states that still wanted to be free, to start pushing for
legal seccession in the courts.
The scary part is that the reality of this happening is very very
possible. Criminals will be loving that ruling.
Why? They already have easy access to guns.
Well, because then their victims will not.
There are more than enough guns already in circulation. Non issue.
_http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtml?s=ic_
(http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtm
l?s=ic)
Dec. 7, 2006Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for
the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment
right to bear arms
applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on
handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere.
Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in
unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the
Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all
people
or only to "a well
regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual
gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the
issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first
case
in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court
disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a
challenge to California's ban
on assault weapons.
In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city
residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to
own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime
neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns
but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all
pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but
a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not
clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd
Kim,
the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of
Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have
had the authority to ban
all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second
Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It
doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's
argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in
the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however,
with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a
well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the
right
to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no
longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase
any part of the Constitution?"
The heading states Milita AND the Right to bear arms....pretty simple to
understand. This game if semantics is simply anti-gun fanatics
desperation.
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those anymore, do
we?
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we still have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
And if you look at the Miller decision, there are numerous quotes about
the
makeup of militias. Not one of them mention *women*.
Then maybe you should check under the law, and then consider that it is
against the law to discriminate based on sex.
The ERA didn't pass.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
13 Dec 2006 09:19:14 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:457F7CFD.F5A45644@hotmMOVEail.com...
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob uecker wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165609066.371520.98630@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Ms My Rights wrote:
If this gets tested to the Supreme Court and we lose, at least
we'll
know we've lost our freedom and our country for good. Then it would
be
time for the states that still wanted to be free, to start pushing
for
legal seccession in the courts.
The scary part is that the reality of this happening is very very
possible. Criminals will be loving that ruling.
Why? They already have easy access to guns.
Well, because then their victims will not.
There are more than enough guns already in circulation. Non issue.
That would change if the anti-gunners had their way.
_http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtml?s=ic_
(http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtm
l?s=ic)
Dec. 7, 2006Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys
for
the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second
Amendment
right to bear arms
applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on
handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated
elsewhere.
Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in
unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether
the
Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all
people
or only to "a well
regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed
individual
gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the
issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first
case
in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court
disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up
a
challenge to California's ban
on assault weapons.
In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city
residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right
to
own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime
neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off
shotguns
but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on
all
pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year
but
a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not
clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd
Kim,
the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of
Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also
have
had the authority to ban
all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second
Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It
doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th
century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's
argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common
in
the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle,
however,
with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a
well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the
right
to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no
longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we
erase
any part of the Constitution?"
The heading states Milita AND the Right to bear arms....pretty simple
to
understand. This game if semantics is simply anti-gun fanatics
desperation.
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those anymore,
do
we?
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
Not necessary for protections under the 2nd. It is enough that I am a member
of the people.
And if you look at the Miller decision, there are numerous quotes about
the
makeup of militias. Not one of them mention *women*.
Then maybe you should check under the law, and then consider that it is
against the law to discriminate based on sex.
The ERA didn't pass.
Didn't need to. 14th Amendment.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
13 Dec 2006 08:54:28 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:457F7CFD.F5A45644@hotmMOVEail.com...
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
13 Dec 2006 10:54:11 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> said in <news:CuUfh.878$hv1.695
@bignews1.bellsouth.net> on Wed 13 Dec 2006 08:54:28a:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:457F7CFD.F5A45644@hotmMOVEail.com...
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
Because there's no individual right there at all. Where do you see the
words "person" or "hunting" or "carry pistols secretly"?
The NRA-ILA has perverted the US Constitution just to keep the gun industry
afloat. It has nothing to do with your personal gun rights which you
already have under state law.
They're selling you goods you already have, and you just keep paying them
for additional fantasy league rights that you don't deserve.
There's the feeling that, if you pay for something surely you must deserve
it. But that's not the case when you buy stolen goods, or fake rights.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
13 Dec 2006 08:31:58 PM |
|
|
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98986EEC24537loneweaselyhdc@204.153.244.170...
"Bob" <no@email.address> said in <news:CuUfh.878$hv1.695
@bignews1.bellsouth.net> on Wed 13 Dec 2006 08:54:28a:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:457F7CFD.F5A45644@hotmMOVEail.com...
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
Because there's no individual right there at all.
The 2nd Amendment is an individual right protected from federal
infringement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
13 Dec 2006 08:43:27 PM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98986EEC24537loneweaselyhdc@204.153.244.170...
"Bob" <no@email.address> said in <news:CuUfh.878$hv1.695
@bignews1.bellsouth.net> on Wed 13 Dec 2006 08:54:28a:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:457F7CFD.F5A45644@hotmMOVEail.com...
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
Because there's no individual right there at all.
The 2nd Amendment is an individual right protected from federal
infringement.
And the proof of this statement is...?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
13 Dec 2006 10:23:12 PM |
|
|
Matt wrote:
Dana wrote:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98986EEC24537loneweaselyhdc@204.153.244.170...
"Bob" <no@email.address> said in <news:CuUfh.878$hv1.695
@bignews1.bellsouth.net> on Wed 13 Dec 2006 08:54:28a:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:457F7CFD.F5A45644@hotmMOVEail.com...
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
Because there's no individual right there at all.
The 2nd Amendment is an individual right protected from federal
infringement.
And the proof of this statement is...?
The Preamble.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Dec 2006 08:55:33 PM |
|
|
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:Rk4gh.5754$a14.4544@newsfe24.lga...
Matt wrote:
Dana wrote:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98986EEC24537loneweaselyhdc@204.153.244.170...
"Bob" <no@email.address> said in <news:CuUfh.878$hv1.695
@bignews1.bellsouth.net> on Wed 13 Dec 2006 08:54:28a:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:457F7CFD.F5A45644@hotmMOVEail.com...
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
Because there's no individual right there at all.
The 2nd Amendment is an individual right protected from federal
infringement.
And the proof of this statement is...?
The Preamble.
The 2nd Amendment.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Dec 2006 10:45:59 AM |
|
|
Peter Franks wrote:
Matt wrote:
Dana wrote:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98986EEC24537loneweaselyhdc@204.153.244.170...
"Bob" <no@email.address> said in <news:CuUfh.878$hv1.695
@bignews1.bellsouth.net> on Wed 13 Dec 2006 08:54:28a:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:457F7CFD.F5A45644@hotmMOVEail.com...
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
Because there's no individual right there at all.
The 2nd Amendment is an individual right protected from federal
infringement.
And the proof of this statement is...?
The Preamble.
Ignoring the fact that the Preamble is not a part of US law...
Where, pray tell, does it say in the Preamble that gun ownership and
usage is an individual right? Please be specific.
matt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Dec 2006 11:55:29 AM |
|
|
Matt wrote:
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
Because there's no individual right there at all.
The 2nd Amendment is an individual right protected from federal
infringement.
And the proof of this statement is...?
The Preamble.
Ignoring the fact that the Preamble is not a part of US law...
The Preamble describes the /purposes/ of the amendments -- it is most
definitely NOT law -- it is /above/ the law, and would be entirely
inappropriate to consider it as law.
Where, pray tell, does it say in the Preamble that gun ownership and
usage is an individual right? Please be specific.
I was addressing the fragment "...right protected from federal
infringement." The interpretation of whether or not Amendment II is an
individual or collective or military 'right' is irrelevant.
What is important is the premise that is /clearly/ laid out in the
Preamble that the Amendments are "declarative and restrictive clauses"
AGAINST government. And that is ALL that they are.
- They don't establish or grant rights.
- They don't establish the militia, regulated or otherwise.
- They don't establish rules and regulations on arms bearing or
ownership, individual or otherwise.
Preamble to the Amendments, section II:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having
at the time of their adopting the Constitution,
expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction
or abuse of its powers, that further *declaratory* and
*restrictive* clauses should be added: And as extending
the ground of public confidence in the Government,
will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
(emphasis added)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Dec 2006 02:04:59 PM |
|
|
Peter Franks wrote:
Matt wrote:
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
Because there's no individual right there at all.
The 2nd Amendment is an individual right protected from federal
infringement.
And the proof of this statement is...?
The Preamble.
Ignoring the fact that the Preamble is not a part of US law...
The Preamble describes the /purposes/ of the amendments -- it is most
definitely NOT law -- it is /above/ the law, and would be entirely
inappropriate to consider it as law.
Agreed. Although I'm not sure I would call it "above" the law, that
smacks
of our current leader. Instead, let's say that it is a building block
upon which
our law was created.
Where, pray tell, does it say in the Preamble that gun ownership and
usage is an individual right? Please be specific.
I was addressing the fragment "...right protected from federal
infringement." The interpretation of whether or not Amendment II is an
individual or collective or military 'right' is irrelevant.
To you, perhaps. To others, no. I don't really care one way or the
other,
although it is fairly clear that the Amendments ARE, in fact, divided
between
individual and collective rights.
What is important is the premise that is /clearly/ laid out in the
Preamble that the Amendments are "declarative and restrictive clauses"
AGAINST government. And that is ALL that they are.
- They don't establish or grant rights.
Interesting. Please explain, then, the sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
How can you not read this as establishing a right to trial by jury?
- They don't establish the militia, regulated or otherwise.
No, US code does.
- They don't establish rules and regulations on arms bearing or
ownership, individual or otherwise.
Hm. Your opinion, but I have no axe to grind here.
Preamble to the Amendments, section II:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having
at the time of their adopting the Constitution,
expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction
or abuse of its powers, that further *declaratory* and
*restrictive* clauses should be added: And as extending
the ground of public confidence in the Government,
will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
(emphasis added)
From the dictionary:
de=C2=B7clar=C2=B7a=C2=B7to=C2=B7ry (d=C4=AD-kl=C3=A2r'=C9=99-t=C3=B4r'=
=C4=93, -t=C5=8Dr'=C4=93) Pronunciation
Key
adj.
Declarative.
Setting forth that which is the law.
Explaining a legal interpretation or right.
As you can see, by your own words, you've proven they set forth rights.
matt
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
15 Dec 2006 02:38:55 PM |
|
|
"Matt" <matttelles@sprynet.com> wrote in
news:1166126699.339987.32100@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:
Peter Franks wrote:
Matt wrote:
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
Because there's no individual right there at all.
The 2nd Amendment is an individual right protected from federal
infringement.
And the proof of this statement is...?
The Preamble.
Ignoring the fact that the Preamble is not a part of US law...
The Preamble describes the /purposes/ of the amendments -- it is most
definitely NOT law -- it is /above/ the law, and would be entirely
inappropriate to consider it as law.
Agreed. Although I'm not sure I would call it "above" the law, that
smacks
of our current leader. Instead, let's say that it is a building block
upon which
our law was created.
Where, pray tell, does it say in the Preamble that gun ownership
and usage is an individual right? Please be specific.
I was addressing the fragment "...right protected from federal
infringement." The interpretation of whether or not Amendment II is
an individual or collective or military 'right' is irrelevant.
To you, perhaps. To others, no. I don't really care one way or the
other,
although it is fairly clear that the Amendments ARE, in fact, divided
between
individual and collective rights.
What is important is the premise that is /clearly/ laid out in the
Preamble that the Amendments are "declarative and restrictive
clauses" AGAINST government. And that is ALL that they are.
- They don't establish or grant rights.
Interesting. Please explain, then, the sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his
defense.
How can you not read this as establishing a right to trial by jury?
- They don't establish the militia, regulated or otherwise.
No, US code does.
- They don't establish rules and regulations on arms bearing or
ownership, individual or otherwise.
Hm. Your opinion, but I have no axe to grind here.
Preamble to the Amendments, section II:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having
at the time of their adopting the Constitution,
expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction
or abuse of its powers, that further *declaratory* and
*restrictive* clauses should be added: And as extending
the ground of public confidence in the Government,
will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
(emphasis added)
From the dictionary:
de·clar·a·to·ry (dĭ-klâr'ə-tôr'ē, -tōr'ē) Pronunciation
Key
adj.
Declarative.
Setting forth that which is the law.
Explaining a legal interpretation or right.
As you can see, by your own words, you've proven they set forth
rights.
Per the USSC, the Second Amendment does not grant the right to keep and
bear arms. Here is the statement from Cruikshank:
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful
purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it
in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as
has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by
Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to
restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to
look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens
of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York
v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal
legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal
police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the
United States."
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
15 Dec 2006 07:08:03 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) (spamlock) wrote:
"Matt" <matttelles@sprynet.com> wrote in
news:1166126699.339987.32100@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:
Peter Franks wrote:
Matt wrote:
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
Because there's no individual right there at all.
The 2nd Amendment is an individual right protected from federal
infringement.
And the proof of this statement is...?
The Preamble.
Ignoring the fact that the Preamble is not a part of US law...
The Preamble describes the /purposes/ of the amendments -- it is most
definitely NOT law -- it is /above/ the law, and would be entirely
inappropriate to consider it as law.
Agreed. Although I'm not sure I would call it "above" the law, that
smacks
of our current leader. Instead, let's say that it is a building block
upon which
our law was created.
Where, pray tell, does it say in the Preamble that gun ownership
and usage is an individual right? Please be specific.
I was addressing the fragment "...right protected from federal
infringement." The interpretation of whether or not Amendment II is
an individual or collective or military 'right' is irrelevant.
To you, perhaps. To others, no. I don't really care one way or the
other,
although it is fairly clear that the Amendments ARE, in fact, divided
between
individual and collective rights.
What is important is the premise that is /clearly/ laid out in the
Preamble that the Amendments are "declarative and restrictive
clauses" AGAINST government. And that is ALL that they are.
- They don't establish or grant rights.
Interesting. Please explain, then, the sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his
defense.
How can you not read this as establishing a right to trial by jury?
- They don't establish the militia, regulated or otherwise.
No, US code does.
- They don't establish rules and regulations on arms bearing or
ownership, individual or otherwise.
Hm. Your opinion, but I have no axe to grind here.
Preamble to the Amendments, section II:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having
at the time of their adopting the Constitution,
expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction
or abuse of its powers, that further *declaratory* and
*restrictive* clauses should be added: And as extending
the ground of public confidence in the Government,
will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
(emphasis added)
From the dictionary:
de=C2=B7clar=C2=B7a=C2=B7to=C2=B7ry (d=C4=AD-kl=C3=A2r'=C9=99-t=C3=B4=
r'=C4=93, -t=C5=8Dr'=C4=93) Pronunciation
Key
adj.
Declarative.
Setting forth that which is the law.
Explaining a legal interpretation or right.
As you can see, by your own words, you've proven they set forth
rights.
Per the USSC, the Second Amendment does not grant the right to keep and
bear arms. Here is the statement from Cruikshank:
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful
purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it
in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as
has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by
Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to
restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to
look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens
of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York
v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal
legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal
police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the
United States."
The issue here would be the definition of "a lawful purpose" which is
sadly
not defined. Its an interesting quote, though, thanks for it.
My biggest problem with the concept of "natural rights", as they are
often
called, is that if you can't define them, they can subsume anything you
wish
them to. I have a "natural right" to rape women, for example, because
men
are naturally stronger than women (that's an example, let's not come
screaming
at me for hating women, please). You can see where it goes. If you
believe
that you have the right to do anything that is not specifically
prohibited, and that
nothing can be specifically prohibited (since you have natural rights)
there are no
legitimate boundaries.
Where do you draw the line, basically?
Matt
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
16 Dec 2006 10:59:11 AM |
|
|
"Matt" <matttelles@sprynet.com> wrote in
news:1166231283.032955.92290@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
RD (The Sandman) (spamlock) wrote:
"Matt" <matttelles@sprynet.com> wrote in
news:1166126699.339987.32100@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:
Peter Franks wrote:
Matt wrote:
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
Because there's no individual right there at all.
The 2nd Amendment is an individual right protected from
federal infringement.
And the proof of this statement is...?
The Preamble.
Ignoring the fact that the Preamble is not a part of US law...
The Preamble describes the /purposes/ of the amendments -- it is
most definitely NOT law -- it is /above/ the law, and would be
entirely inappropriate to consider it as law.
Agreed. Although I'm not sure I would call it "above" the law, that
smacks
of our current leader. Instead, let's say that it is a building
block upon which
our law was created.
Where, pray tell, does it say in the Preamble that gun ownership
and usage is an individual right? Please be specific.
I was addressing the fragment "...right protected from federal
infringement." The interpretation of whether or not Amendment II
is an individual or collective or military 'right' is irrelevant.
To you, perhaps. To others, no. I don't really care one way or the
other,
although it is fairly clear that the Amendments ARE, in fact,
divided between
individual and collective rights.
What is important is the premise that is /clearly/ laid out in the
Preamble that the Amendments are "declarative and restrictive
clauses" AGAINST government. And that is ALL that they are.
- They don't establish or grant rights.
Interesting. Please explain, then, the sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to
a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.
How can you not read this as establishing a right to trial by jury?
- They don't establish the militia, regulated or otherwise.
No, US code does.
- They don't establish rules and regulations on arms bearing or
ownership, individual or otherwise.
Hm. Your opinion, but I have no axe to grind here.
Preamble to the Amendments, section II:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having
at the time of their adopting the Constitution,
expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction
or abuse of its powers, that further *declaratory* and
*restrictive* clauses should be added: And as extending
the ground of public confidence in the Government,
will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
(emphasis added)
From the dictionary:
de·clar·a·to·ry (dĭ-klâr'ə-tô
r'ē, -tōr'ē) Pronunciation
Key
adj.
Declarative.
Setting forth that which is the law.
Explaining a legal interpretation or right.
As you can see, by your own words, you've proven they set forth
rights.
Per the USSC, the Second Amendment does not grant the right to keep
and bear arms. Here is the statement from Cruikshank:
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful
purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is
it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.
The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but
this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be
infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no
other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,
leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation
by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is
called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers
which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps,
more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or
restrained' by the Constituton of the United States."
The issue here would be the definition of "a lawful purpose" which is
sadly
not defined. Its an interesting quote, though, thanks for it.
It was a response to the claim by Cruikshank. Look at the case itself.
My biggest problem with the concept of "natural rights", as they are
often
called, is that if you can't define them, they can subsume anything
you wish
them to. I have a "natural right" to rape women, for example, because
men
are naturally stronger than women (that's an example, let's not come
screaming
at me for hating women, please). You can see where it goes. If you
believe
that you have the right to do anything that is not specifically
prohibited,
Which raping women is.
and that
nothing can be specifically prohibited (since you have natural rights)
there are no
legitimate boundaries.
No right is absolute. Not even the right to free speech.
Where do you draw the line, basically?
That depends on society. We have all kinds of rights, which ones are
recognized are based on social constructs and usually set down in some
organic document such as a Constitution. Imagine that.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
16 Dec 2006 12:50:32 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
No right is absolute. Not even the right to free speech.
I suggest that you reconsider that (what I consider trite and incorrect)
statement. Rights are most definitely absolute, they are NOT relative.
Rights most definitely do have limits, though.
"...within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others..."
http://www.whatquote.com/quotes/Thomas-Jefferson/37799-Rightful-liberty-is-.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
16 Dec 2006 05:43:49 PM |
|
|
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:ZdXgh.57278$1J1.38536@newsfe17.lga:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
No right is absolute. Not even the right to free speech.
I suggest that you reconsider that (what I consider trite and
incorrect) statement. Rights are most definitely absolute, they are
NOT relative.
Rights most definitely do have limits, though.
"...within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others..."
http://www.whatquote.com/quotes/Thomas-Jefferson/37799-Rightful-liberty
-is-.htm
If they have limits, they are not absolute. Think about that and see if
you think differently or that I am still being trite and incorrect.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
16 Dec 2006 08:46:52 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:ZdXgh.57278$1J1.38536@newsfe17.lga:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
No right is absolute. Not even the right to free speech.
I suggest that you reconsider that (what I consider trite and
incorrect) statement. Rights are most definitely absolute, they are
NOT relative.
Rights most definitely do have limits, though.
"...within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others..."
http://www.whatquote.com/quotes/Thomas-Jefferson/37799-Rightful-liberty
-is-.htm
If they have limits, they are not absolute.
Ok, I see your point. I was using the definition of absolute as
"Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else"
and "not limited by restrictions or exceptions" (AHD 94). I consider
rights absolute in that sense: not relative, limited the the rights of
others, but not subject to restrictions or exceptions.
My hangup is that I consider 'relative' the contrapositive of 'absolute'
in general terms. So, when I hear someone say 'rights are absolute', I
see it as opening the (misinterpretation) door as arguing that 'rights
are relative'.
Think about that and see if
you think differently or that I am still being trite and incorrect.
Nothing was directed to you, personally -- I hope my comment didn't come
off that way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
17 Dec 2006 10:42:49 AM |
|
|
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in news:xc2hh.6900$a14.216
@newsfe24.lga:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:ZdXgh.57278$1J1.38536@newsfe17.lga:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
No right is absolute. Not even the right to free speech.
I suggest that you reconsider that (what I consider trite and
incorrect) statement. Rights are most definitely absolute, they are
NOT relative.
Rights most definitely do have limits, though.
"...within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others..."
http://www.whatquote.com/quotes/Thomas-Jefferson/37799-Rightful-
liberty
-is-.htm
If they have limits, they are not absolute.
Ok, I see your point. I was using the definition of absolute as
"Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else"
and "not limited by restrictions or exceptions" (AHD 94). I consider
rights absolute in that sense: not relative, limited the the rights of
others, but not subject to restrictions or exceptions.
Within reason. I believe that 3 year old children should not be able to
purchase a firearm. Likewise with vilent felons, etc.. I believe that
provate property owners can limit who comes on their property and with
what. There are limits to all the rights.
My hangup is that I consider 'relative' the contrapositive of
'absolute'
in general terms. So, when I hear someone say 'rights are absolute', I
see it as opening the (misinterpretation) door as arguing that 'rights
are relative'.
I think you meant that someone say "rights are not absolute". I have the
same problem with leaving words out. Hopefully the reader will
understand that not look at my comment in the absolute manner. ;)
Think about that and see if
you think differently or that I am still being trite and incorrect.
Nothing was directed to you, personally -- I hope my comment didn't
come off that way.
No problemo.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
17 Dec 2006 06:38:08 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) (spamlock) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in news:xc2hh.6900$a14.216
@newsfe24.lga:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:ZdXgh.57278$1J1.38536@newsfe17.lga:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
No right is absolute. Not even the right to free speech.
I suggest that you reconsider that (what I consider trite and
incorrect) statement. Rights are most definitely absolute, they are
NOT relative.
Rights most definitely do have limits, though.
"...within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others..."
http://www.whatquote.com/quotes/Thomas-Jefferson/37799-Rightful-
liberty
-is-.htm
If they have limits, they are not absolute.
Ok, I see your point. I was using the definition of absolute as
"Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else"
and "not limited by restrictions or exceptions" (AHD 94). I consider
rights absolute in that sense: not relative, limited the the rights of
others, but not subject to restrictions or exceptions.
Within reason. I believe that 3 year old children should not be able to
purchase a firearm. Likewise with vilent felons, etc.. I believe that
provate property owners can limit who comes on their property and with
what. There are limits to all the rights.
A 3 year old child cannot "purchase" much of anything, since they can't
legally control assets. Now, violent felons, that's a different matter.
We
can assume they are of age, so they COULD purchase stuff. I agree with
you, we have no need for those folk buying much of anything. But then,
the
problem there is really that they should be in jail.
Private property owners CAN limit who comes on their property, which
some
notable exceptions (police officers with warrants and federal agents
come to
mind). Crossing your property can be problematic, depending on the
situation.
Honestly, as you know, I agree with you. Normal, rational, people
should be
allowed to own and use firearms, own property, buy whatever the heck
they
want to buy. The problem is defining who is rational. Sigh. You and I
know who
they are, but I doubt either of us could write a law that defined it.
My hangup is that I consider 'relative' the contrapositive of
'absolute'
in general terms. So, when I hear someone say 'rights are absolute', I
see it as opening the (misinterpretation) door as arguing that 'rights
are relative'.
I think you meant that someone say "rights are not absolute". I have the
same problem with leaving words out. Hopefully the reader will
understand that not look at my comment in the absolute manner. ;)
Well, yeah. I think we all got what you meant.
Matt
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
18 Dec 2006 12:01:21 PM |
|
|
"Matt" <matttelles@sprynet.com> wrote in
news:1166402288.769216.311050@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:
RD (The Sandman) (spamlock) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in news:xc2hh.6900$a14.216
@newsfe24.lga:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:ZdXgh.57278$1J1.38536@newsfe17.lga:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
No right is absolute. Not even the right to free speech.
I suggest that you reconsider that (what I consider trite and
incorrect) statement. Rights are most definitely absolute, they
are NOT relative.
Rights most definitely do have limits, though.
"...within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of
others..."
http://www.whatquote.com/quotes/Thomas-Jefferson/37799-Rightful-
liberty
-is-.htm
If they have limits, they are not absolute.
Ok, I see your point. I was using the definition of absolute as
"Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything
else" and "not limited by restrictions or exceptions" (AHD 94). I
consider rights absolute in that sense: not relative, limited the
the rights of others, but not subject to restrictions or
exceptions.
Within reason. I believe that 3 year old children should not be able
to purchase a firearm. Likewise with vilent felons, etc.. I believe
that provate property owners can limit who comes on their property
and with what. There are limits to all the rights.
A 3 year old child cannot "purchase" much of anything, since they
can't legally control assets.
Interesting. Teenagers purchase a lot of stuff. In fact, the majority
of advertising for video games, CDs, DVDs,, stereos, etc.. are very much
directed at them. Yet, since they are minors they can't legally control
assets, they simply spend billions of their parent's money. Care to
restate your point?
Now, violent felons, that's a different
matter. We
can assume they are of age, so they COULD purchase stuff. I agree with
you, we have no need for those folk buying much of anything. But then,
the
problem there is really that they should be in jail.
I agree, but too many liberals keep letting them out. ;)
Private property owners CAN limit who comes on their property, [with]
some
notable exceptions (police officers with warrants and federal agents
come to
mind). Crossing your property can be problematic, depending on the
situation.
Honestly, as you know, I agree with you. Normal, rational, people
should be
allowed to own and use firearms, own property, buy whatever the heck
they
want to buy. The problem is defining who is rational. Sigh. You and I
know who
they are, but I doubt either of us could write a law that defined it.
Correct.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
18 Dec 2006 12:19:26 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) (spamlock) wrote:
"Matt" <matttelles@sprynet.com> wrote in
news:1166402288.769216.311050@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:
RD (The Sandman) (spamlock) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in news:xc2hh.6900$a14.216
@newsfe24.lga:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:ZdXgh.57278$1J1.38536@newsfe17.lga:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
No right is absolute. Not even the right to free speech.
I suggest that you reconsider that (what I consider trite and
incorrect) statement. Rights are most definitely absolute, they
are NOT relative.
Rights most definitely do have limits, though.
"...within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of
others..."
http://www.whatquote.com/quotes/Thomas-Jefferson/37799-Rightful-
liberty
-is-.htm
If they have limits, they are not absolute.
Ok, I see your point. I was using the definition of absolute as
"Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything
else" and "not limited by restrictions or exceptions" (AHD 94). I
consider rights absolute in that sense: not relative, limited the
the rights of others, but not subject to restrictions or
exceptions.
Within reason. I believe that 3 year old children should not be able
to purchase a firearm. Likewise with vilent felons, etc.. I believe
that provate property owners can limit who comes on their property
and with what. There are limits to all the rights.
A 3 year old child cannot "purchase" much of anything, since they
can't legally control assets.
Interesting. Teenagers purchase a lot of stuff. In fact, the majority
of advertising for video games, CDs, DVDs,, stereos, etc.. are very much
directed at them. Yet, since they are minors they can't legally control
assets, they simply spend billions of their parent's money. Care to
restate your point?
They are spending their parent's money, what's your point? They can
SPEND
anything they want, but the assets belong to their parents, unless they
are
emancipated.
Now, violent felons, that's a different
matter. We
can assume they are of age, so they COULD purchase stuff. I agree with
you, we have no need for those folk buying much of anything. But then,
the
problem there is really that they should be in jail.
I agree, but too many liberals keep letting them out. ;)
Yeah well. I can agree that violent felons should be kept away forever,
if you
can agree that putting drug users in jail serves no useful purpose.
Private property owners CAN limit who comes on their property, [with]
some
notable exceptions (police officers with warrants and federal agents
come to
mind). Crossing your property can be problematic, depending on the
situation.
Honestly, as you know, I agree with you. Normal, rational, people
should be
allowed to own and use firearms, own property, buy whatever the heck
they
want to buy. The problem is defining who is rational. Sigh. You and I
know who
they are, but I doubt either of us could write a law that defined it.
Correct.
Sadly, that's the part that sucks. We've gone from being a rational
country to
one that has to have everything spelled out for us. I trust some people
with guns,
others I do not, and I suspect most rational people would agree. But
how to
write a law that spelled this out... no clue.
Matt
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
18 Dec 2006 12:47:49 PM |
|
|
"Matt" <matttelles@sprynet.com> wrote in
news:1166465966.022200.319320@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
RD (The Sandman) (spamlock) wrote:
"Matt" <matttelles@sprynet.com> wrote in
news:1166402288.769216.311050@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:
RD (The Sandman) (spamlock) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in news:xc2hh.6900$a14.216
@newsfe24.lga:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:ZdXgh.57278$1J1.38536@newsfe17.lga:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
No right is absolute. Not even the right to free speech.
I suggest that you reconsider that (what I consider trite and
incorrect) statement. Rights are most definitely absolute,
they are NOT relative.
Rights most definitely do have limits, though.
"...within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of
others..."
http://www.whatquote.com/quotes/Thomas-Jefferson/37799-Rightful-
liberty
-is-.htm
If they have limits, they are not absolute.
Ok, I see your point. I was using the definition of absolute as
"Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything
else" and "not limited by restrictions or exceptions" (AHD 94).
I consider rights absolute in that sense: not relative, limited
the the rights of others, but not subject to restrictions or
exceptions.
Within reason. I believe that 3 year old children should not be
able to purchase a firearm. Likewise with vilent felons, etc.. I
believe that provate property owners can limit who comes on their
property and with what. There are limits to all the rights.
A 3 year old child cannot "purchase" much of anything, since they
can't legally control assets.
Interesting. Teenagers purchase a lot of stuff. In fact, the
majority of advertising for video games, CDs, DVDs,, stereos, etc..
are very much directed at them. Yet, since they are minors they
can't legally control assets, they simply spend billions of their
parent's money. Care to restate your point?
They are spending their parent's money, what's your point? They can
SPEND
anything they want, but the assets belong to their parents, unless
they are
emancipated.
One doesn't need to have legal control of assets in order to purchase a
firearm (the premise above when I mentioned 3 year olds) one only needs
money unless some other law prevents the sale. Emancipation or not,
control of assets is not one of those laws. Your point was moot, but not
applicable.
Now, violent felons, that's a different
matter. We
can assume they are of age, so they COULD purchase stuff. I agree
with you, we have no need for those folk buying much of anything.
But then, the
problem there is really that they should be in jail.
I agree, but too many liberals keep letting them out. ;)
Yeah well. I can agree that violent felons should be kept away
forever, if you
can agree that putting drug users in jail serves no useful purpose.
I am in favor of the War on Drugs being called a loser and ended. Let
the DEA go find meaningful work to do. What a consenting adult puts up
their nose is no one's business but their own until that use causes a
public menace.
Some drugs should be legalized, controlled like prescription
pharmaceuticals (however without the prescription just be behind the
counter to control access by minors), taxed and the monies used for drug
education and rehab.
Private property owners CAN limit who comes on their property,
[with] some
notable exceptions (police officers with warrants and federal
agents come to
mind). Crossing your property can be problematic, depending on the
situation.
Honestly, as you know, I agree with you. Normal, rational, people
should be
allowed to own and use firearms, own property, buy whatever the
heck they
want to buy. The problem is defining who is rational. Sigh. You and
I know who
they are, but I doubt either of us could write a law that defined
it.
Correct.
Sadly, that's the part that sucks. We've gone from being a rational
country to
one that has to have everything spelled out for us. I trust some
people with guns,
others I do not, and I suspect most rational people would agree. But
how to
write a law that spelled this out... no clue.
Agreed, but I would like to see the real effort going to disarming the
illegal market, not the one made up of generally honest citizens.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
17 Dec 2006 12:13:54 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in news:xc2hh.6900$a14.216
@newsfe24.lga:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
