Yes, they represent their peoples views. If their constituents wanted it I think you would see it ratified with no problem. But I would wager that 2/3 of the population are not in favor of totaling removing the right to fire arms. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marlon Moyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 9:52 AM Subject: Re: Possible Sniper Arrest
> Yeah, unfortunately nowadays everything is a Dem/Rep issue split right > down the middle. > > Kevin Schmidt wrote: > > >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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
