Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:45:33 -0500, ulTRAX wrote
(in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):

> It's rather curious that the Gun Nuts find a universal right to bear
> arms in language that clearly doesn't intend one: "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."
Regardless of the reason (A well regukated militia...), the sum of the 
decision is that the right of the people shall not be infringed. Lacking an 
amendment to the Constitution, that right stands.
> 
> If the First Congress intended a universal right all they had to do
> was simply write "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to
> bear arms."
There's a telling remark- "Congress intended". It wasn't the purpose of the 
Constitution to "intend" or grant rights. Its purpose was to protect rights 
thought to be inherent by placing limitations on the power of government to 
abridge or infringe those rights.



 Now that would be a Gun Nut's wet dream. No more having to
> rewrite history or force round pegs in square holes.
Calling people Gun Nuts isn't going to prove your point.



>    
> How about "People being necessary to the security of a free state, the
> right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Or better yet: "A unorganized rabble, being necessary to the security
> of a free state, the right of untrained people to keep and bear arms,
> shall not be infringed."

Which untrained people are you talking about? At the time, it was assumed 
that most people were quite skilled in the use of firearms. That many people 
are unskilled now doesn't negate the right any more than poor vocabulary 
negates one's First Amendment rights. I always find it amusing that the same 
crowd that considers sex education, drug awareness and teaching "respect" for 
diversity- that is, those who think education is the cure for so many social 
ills- think that banning guns is a solution to anything, rather than 
mandatory gun training and safety.
        CZ
>  
> Any others?