Good luck getting 2/3 of the states to ratify it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marlon Moyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 9:42 AM Subject: Re: Possible Sniper Arrest
> Just because it's part of the Constitution does not mean that it's > right. After all, the Constitution is a living document and must change > as time goes by. Over 200 years have passed and I certainly don't have > the same fears of the government now as the authors of the Constitution > had then. Maybe it's time for a new amendment. > > Timothy Heald wrote: > > >Beyond all of the "feelings" based debate, we in the US have an amendment. The text of which is: > > > >"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, > >the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." > > > >Now this mentions both the state and the people, therefore there is debate over whose right this is speaking of. But follow the structure of the sentence and I think it is plain. > > > >Justification = A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State > > > >The right = the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. > > > >Pretty basic if you ask me. We have stretched the first amendment to say that a crucifix in urine is an expression of free speech, yet we cannot allow the citizens of America to be secure in the right to defend themselves. > > > >I mean if you read the writings of the times, especially Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the document, you will see that the founding fathers were very much for the populace owning military style weapons. There was even a point in our history where such was required by law (a rifle, 100 rounds and a backpack). > > > >As such, I cannot agree with any gun legislation (even that which already exists) without a constitutional amendment that over rides the 2nd. I follow the law, I just don't support it. > > > >Tim > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Nick McClure [mailto:cf-lists@;king-nacho.com] > >Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 10:07 AM > >To: CF-Community > >Subject: RE: Possible Sniper Arrest > > > > > >You people are weird? ;) > > > >Or maybe we are the weird ones. If you look at the gun related crime in > >this country, there are usually other crimes. The gun makes it faster > >and easier for the criminal. > > > >Look at the stats for Homicide in 1999: > >Handguns - 7950 > >Other Guns - 2168 > >Knives - 2049 > >Other - 2546 > >Blunt Objects - 903 > >(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm) > > > >I can't find stats on the mitigating factors of the crime, but it does > >show that gun use is high among the younger generation. > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Will Swain [mailto:will@;hothorse.com] > >>Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 9:33 AM > >>To: CF-Community > >>Subject: RE: Possible Sniper Arrest > >> > >>"As to the victims, think about it from a criminal mind. If a law > >> > >> > >were > > > > > >>passed making weapon ownership illegal, then you know there is a much > >>lower chance of retaliation for things like break-ins or hold-ups. > >> > >> > >More > > > > > >>violent crimes such as assault, rape and kidnappings probably would > >> > >> > >not > > > > > >>be affected, but if there is a known reduction in resistance what is > >> > >> > >to > > > > > >>stop an increase in crime?" > >> > >>But that just isn't the case here. Infact, we have less violent crime. > >> > >> > >How > > > > > >>do you explain that? > >> > >>w > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_community Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
