I guess that's one of those things about having a written constitution. We don't have one, and frankly I wish we did, as I feel strongly it's a very 'good thing'.
Anyhows, I'm almost finished for the day, so I'll sign off now and thank you all for the stimulating debate. Cheers will -----Original Message----- From: Timothy Heald [mailto:healdt@;dsmail.state.gov] Sent: 22 October 2002 15:23 To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Possible Sniper Arrest 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
