--- "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>
> The 2nd Amendment, in other words, is the
> Constitution's de facto escape
> clause. But it's an escape clause addressing the
> state:fed relationship,
> not the individual:state relationship.
>
I follow what you're saying but I think you're going
too deep into the events of the time and ya, maybe a
bit too cynical. =) I think the most logical way to
read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to
take them as a whole and extract the edicts as a list
of similar items. It's a list of freedoms for people,
it's just not very complicated. I hate to sound like
a broken record, and I do appreciate your well thought
out views.
> I can't see
> > that being the 2nd of 10 it was only put in there
> to
> > placate the anti-feds. It's not the best in
> wording,
> > but it's not the worst and it's certainly not an
> > abomination. Taken in context as it was meant,
> it's
> > pretty clear.
>
> But not so clear that we're not still wondering
> about it 200+ years later,
> even after a string of Supreme Court cases to
> clarify the issue. It's
> prominence reflects the importance of balancing
> state vs. federal power in
> the rawest sense of the word.
>
People see what they're looking for. Really, what
would a person who has no idea of the significance of
the Bill of Rights think when they read the 2nd?
And I wonder what the framers would think today if
they knew fed vs. state was going strong? Did they
intend it as a check/balance system like the congress,
judiciary, and executive or did they want the states
to keep the fed weak? Though it would seem the states
get strongarmed more and more often now- highway funds
come to mind.
> > You only underline the reason for my trepidation
> for
> > being associated with the gun lobby at large- it's
> > obviously a way for large corporations to assure
> their
> > profits. However the gun industry certainly isn't
> > raking in the money that tobacco was(still is) or
> > alcohol.
>
> True, but that doesn't mean it won't employ all the
> tactics it can to make
> every buck it can. To do otherwise would be
> unAmerican!
>
Politics is a dirty business, it's almost like a
contageous disease.
> > And the reason for it's strength is largely
> > because people who aren't as discerning as I jump
> on
> > board- they're not out to help gun manufacturers,
> they
> > want to prevent the erosion of personal freedoms
> in
> > this country as I do. Which was my original
> argument,
> > that personal gun ownership is in the net a good
> > thing.
>
> Honestly I can't see how gun ownership can be linked
> to any aspect of
> American life that's fundamentally superior to the
> lives of people living
> in democratic societies with much tighter gun laws.
> Aside from the
> general yee-haw-ness of owning a cool weapon, that
> is, which I agree is
> pretty cool emotionally...but does that really
> count?
>
Well, I certainly never was comparing us to anyone
else. Let me reiterate that taking responsibility for
one's own safety is pretty much where personal
responsibility starts. People might as well do it,
the police are not charged with protecting individual
citizens.
> > Further addition to the already copious
> > regulations on the books can only start nibbling
> away
> > at the freedoms of law abiding citizens.
>
> As others have said, certain kinds of freedom need
> to be balanced by
> increased responsibility. One of the ironies of law
> is that it's possible
> to make a law outlawing irresponsible or criminal
> gun use, and yet still
> not make a law granting sufficient enforcement power
> to effectively police
> the first law.
>
> I mean, when someone stands up and says we don't
> need gun control,
aargh, we have it already.
> but we just need better to enforce the laws that
> already exist, and then
> refuses to vote for measures that would make it
> *possible* to enforce the
> laws that already exist, I get confused.
>
I'm honestly curious, what gun laws need more laws to
allow enforcement?
> > You are absolutely correct, the 2nd isn't going to
> be
> > repealed because there are more basic issues to be
> > settled. BTW- I didn't include that as a tactic,
> i
> > was trying to bring the debate to it's logical
> > conclusion. When the issues of violence in a free
> > society are settled we will have matured to the
> point
> > that perhaps no one will need to fear harm from
> > another anymore. That's a long way off
> unfortunately.
>
> I think I was unclear. I don't mean solving the
> problem of violence in
> total. That's involves unravelling human nature. I
> mean resolving issues
> that fester in our national psyche, such as whether
> it's proper and
> productive to cling to the promise of armed
> resistance to our own elected
> government
If violence is fundamental to human nature, what
better way to ensure justice than to level the playing
field? Every able bodied citizen is part of the
militia in the US. The reasons for that are much
deeper than states vs fed.
, or whether it's proper for the state to
> offer violence in
> return for acts of private "criminality"
> (imprisoning pot smokers, for
> instance).
>
> (Is it just me, or is it insane to insist that guns
> are essential to
> freedom but that pot-smoking should result in
> arrest? How can I be free
> if I'm not allowed to roll a joint in my own home?)
>
I fail to see the correlation, though smoking pot is
very much a victimless crime. Tobacco pushed that
through way back when, you could say that they nipped
it in the bud.
> America still has some issues to work out. :-)
>
Don't we all.
Dean Forster
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
