On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No laws regarding the ownership of guns, not their usage. Laws about how you > use guns and what the result of their usage is does not infringe on the > amendment. I'm all for that. You can own a gun, you can carry a gun, you can > make love to a gun, but once you fire it you are bound by laws beyond the > constitution which may result in a fine, imprisonment, or even death.
I tend to think that this is how things ought to go, but I'm not sure if that interpretation is supported by a plain text reading. The amendment says "keep and bear arms". Keeping arms is pretty straight forward, it is a passive act meaning you can own them and have them. Bearing arms is a bit tougher. Bearing is an active word and it is transactional. "Bearing false witness" means to actively lie, not just think bad thoughts. So bearing arms would seem to be about how you use the arms, not just sheer ownership. I'm really glad that I am not writing a constitution. Could you imagine people pouring over the meaning of every comma and connector word you use for hundreds of years? Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:280069 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
