OT: Nostradamus on Bush
dgossman at gcisolutions.com
Sat Dec 30 01:40:42 EST 2000
"David Ball" <wraith7 at mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3a4b3248.1727016 at news.escape.ca...
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 00:10:33 -0600, Don Staples
> <dstaples at livingston.net> wrote:
> >> And
> >> before you quote me chapter and verse of the "right to bear arms"
> >> nonsense, remember the 2nd amendment to your own constitution of 1791
> >> reads, "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, perhaps you could explain exactly how a homicide
> >> rate among children 5 times that of most of the industrialized world
> >> aids in the formation of a well regulated militia?
> >See above. If the Second Amendment is bogus, than the rest are, so why
do you post
> >here in full righteous fervor in the 1st Amendment?
> Actually, the US Constitution is something to be proud of. It
> is a great historical document. Your interpretation of it is severely
> flawed however. BTW, could you explain to me why there is a need for a
> well regulated militia in the year 2000? Taken in historical context,
> 200 years ago, a militia was likely a good idea when there was no
> standing army and no reserves. Exactly what context is there that
> requires militia today? Oh, and could you also explain where in your
> second amendment you see anything about automatic weapons?
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. Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution.
Does the Second Amendment guarantee the right to keep and
bear arms to the militia or to the people?
Grammatically, the word "right" is undisputedly the subject
of the sentence. The predicate (or main verb phrase) is "shall
not be infringed." It is a straightforward command. The
reference to the word "Militia" appears only as an introductory
subordinate clause, which has no power to limit or restrict the
subject or the predicate.
Well, as our first chief Justice, John Marshal, once noted,
the men who wrote the Constitution were intelligent men, pretty
handy with the English language, and we have to assume they said
what they meant to say.
If they had intended to say that only members of the militia
have a right to keep and bear arms, they would have said so.
They simply offered one reason (but not the only reason), and
commanded that the right of the people shall not be
infringed....all the people.
The simple fact is that in states where there are concealed carry laws there
has been a significant decline in violent crime. In countries like England
where gun ownership if virtually banned there is a rising tide of violent
robberies and associated violence as the criminal element realizes that
people are vulnerable even while in their own homes. As for automatic
weapons - they require special permits to own in the US that are pretty hard
to get and expensive.
|David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
|President | http://gcisolutions.com |
| The Business of Problem Solving |
"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
More information about the Ag-forst