--- Steve Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dean Forster wrote:
>
> > this is all beside the point that you don't have
> to be
> > part of the militia at all. the wording is very
> plain
> > and straightforward: (from the same link above)
> >
> > "These arguments all begin from an unexamined
> premise:
> > that the Constitution and its Bill of Rights can
> be
> > read in bits and pieces so that each provision
> becomes
> > a discrete passage. Such a reading of the first
> amendment
> > would have legislators proclaiming that individual
> states
> > can pass laws abridging freedom of speech, since
> the
> > amendment ties its prohibitions of government
> action to
> > Congress.
>
> Free speech isn't absolute, either. There's the old
> cliche
> about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. There
> are also
> laws against libel and slander. Essentially, these
> are laws
> designed to permit as much freedom of speech as
> possible,
> while guarding people against the worst effects of
> speech.
>
I wasn't refuting that, i was saying that the
judiciary isn't just on some kick about guns- it was
simply them doing what they feel is their job.
> Doesn't that suggest that gun ownership could have a
> similar
> amount of legislation, for the same purpose, and
> still be
> constitutional? This could include legislation like
> registering guns (the same way we register that
> other
> potentially deadly weapon, the car), and setting
> restrictions
> on who can own a gun.
You must have missed my long explanations about the
copious legislation already in place. We already have
our guns registered and felons and violent offenders
can't have them. If you're suggesting other
restrictions on who owns a gun, what are they?
>
> > the foundation of your argument is a comma. I
> know
> > you can do better than this, i've seen it. you're
> not
> > a lawyer, are ya? ;) darn lawyers.
>
> The founding fathers *were* lawyers, or at the very
> least,
> they were very exacting about wording the
> Constitution in
> exactly the way they wanted it. Presumably, they
> wanted that
> comma there for a reason, so it's reasonable to
> think about
> the comma while trying to interpret the
> Constitution.
>
I think it's safe to say that the framers of the
constitution did more with their lives than argue
points of law. They were creating something, they
weren't trying to pick something apart to further
their own ends. Shall we debate the use of commas in
other documents now? please say no.
Dean
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
