--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm breaking up my reply to Dean into several parts.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dean Forster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 12:44 PM
> Subject: Re: gun control (newbie) L3
>
> > ** but detracting from or taking away entirely a
> > guaranteed freedom as a citizen of the US is not
> > acceptable. You're certainly not going to fix
> > everyone, but making a nice safe little womb for
> > everyone is even less feasible.
> >
>
> Why the extreme rhetoric?
hey, i spout rhetoric just to have it challenged.
thanks, Dan. =)
I snipped the rest for the sake of brevity, no
subterfuge intended.
As for your interpretation of the 2nd, i have 2 for
you out of a very large selection to argue the point.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
_______________
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
therefore, is a right of the individual citizen to
privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner
firearms and similar arms. Such an "individual rights"
interpretation is in full accord with the history of
the right to keep and bear arms, as previously
discussed. It is moreover in accord with
contemporaneous statements and formulations of the
right by such founders of this nation as Thomas
Jefferson and Samuel Adams, and accurately reflects
the majority of the proposals which led up to the Bill
of Rights itself.
The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history,
concept, and wording of the second amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, as well as its
interpretation by every major commentator and court in
the first half century after its ratification,
indicates that what is protected is an individual
right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms
in a peaceful manner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 1982
88-618 0
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,
U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
I think that something presented before congress has
some merit. What were your sources? The second one
is from Cecil Adams
http://www.urbin.net/EWW/polyticks/RKBA/sdoncg.html ,
here's my favorite part:
"Put yourself in a gun owner's shoes. While the first
half of the second amendment is no miracle of clarity,
the second half is about as plain as it can be. "The
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed." But gun control advocates deny this
sentence means what it seems perfectly evident it
says, and the courts have backed them up. Gun owners'
recognition that one of their most cherished rights
has been interpreted out of existence accounts for the
apocalyptic tone in which their arguments are often
framed."
It's plainly phrased and in keeping with the wording
of the rest of the bill of rights. You have to do
some real backflips of logic to say that individuals
are not at least half of what the framers were talking
about. And no, I'm not a Libertarian. Those guys
have some good ideas, but they're selfish jerks- i
agree with you there.
respectfully
dean
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
