Re: Silveira DENIED Certiorari

The Lone Weasel wrote:
> Stephan Rothstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 
>
>
> > The Lone Weasel wrote:
> >
> >
> > > You're hysterical, so just remember the gunlobby lied to
> > > you when it said you have a personal gun right under the
> > > Second Amendment.  They just wanted your money.  The gun 
> > > manufacturers just wanted you to buy new guns.
> >
> > Actually, I think you are the one getting hysterical here.
> > You would have us believe that the phrase "the people"
> > means something different in one amendment than it does in
> > the others. 
>
>
> No I wouldn't.

yes you would. The Fourth Amendment says the right of the people to be 
secure and you agree that it is an individual right. So how can the 
right of the people in the Second Amendment mean a different group?

> > You would also have us believe that in the
> > middle of a list of rights reserved to the people and
> > limits on the government, they through in a right for the
> > states. 
>
>
> Well, the Tenth Amendment also reserves to the states such 
> powers as the internal police, by which you have gun rights 
> in the first place.  And two of those original amendments had 
> to do with House apportionment in the states and salaries for 
> members of congress - the former was rejected by the people, 
> the latter ratified in 1992 as the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.  
> Also, the Third Amendment originally protected just house 
> owners, not everybody, from having to quarter soldiers in 
> peacetime.

The Third Amendment provided an individual right as much as the Second 
Amendment does. It protects any individual with a house and the Second 
protects any individual with a gun. Neither are limited to certain 
groups other than those that it cannot apply to by definition.

As for the Tenth, I will point out that it pertains to both the states 
and to the individuals. But since you bring it up, I will point out that 
my gun rights come as much from the Tenth Amendment as the Second. It 
clearly states that the Federal Government cannot regulate or decide 
anything about my guns since nothing in the Constitution gives them the 
right to regulate any of my personal possessions. Even the 9th circuit 
says so in their recent decision on fully automatic weapons.

The 27th is not a part of the bill of rights and has nothing to do with 
rights, even if it was proposed at the same time. That may be why it was 
not passed back then and waited so long to be rediscovered. The Founding 
Fathers knew that it did not belong with the Bill of Rights.

And I have no idea how you can claim a proposed amendment was rejected 
by the people. It can be ratified by the state legislature without any 
vote, so it must have been turned down by the state legislatures. There 
may have been a public outcry against it or may not (I am not that much 
of a historian to know), but it was not turned down by the people.

> And when you look at the US Constitution as a whole - instead 
> of just the first ten amendments - you see that it's not all 
> about individual rights. 
>
> I use this site alot:
>
> http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

I also use that site a lot and find it quite informative. It is not an 
absolute authority though or you would have to admit that it undercuts 
your own position. Findlaw clearly states that they believe that no 
decision has been made concerning whether the Second means an individual 
right or a collective right. They also point out that SCOTUS only said 
that there was no evidence that the militia used sawed off shotguns 
presented, not that it was a required point. Since Miller was not 
answered by the lawyers representing Miller (who was dead at the time), 
it does not mean anything firm and any honest legal scholar would 
recognize that fact.

> > The "gun lobby" hasn't lied to me about the right existing.
>
>
> Yes they have.

Nope. They say that they believe it does and that the question has not 
been firmly decided by the SCOTUS. That is much more honest than what 
you claim.

> > They have not defended it as much as I want.
>
>
> Why would they?  If you suddenly had a personal right to have 
> guns under the Second Amendment, you wouldn't send them money 
> anymore.

Wrong again. I send them money for other purposes also since neither the 
NRA nor the TSRA (the two gun lobby organizations that I primarily 
support) only lobby. They also support teams, youth activities, safety 
programs, and police marksmanship training. Then there are the museums 
they have and such, so they will still get money from me. They do get 
more now since it is needed for lobbying against the idiots that agree 
with you, but that is hopefully just a temporary problem.


> > As for the gun manufacturers just wanting me to buy more
> > guns, I agree with you. 
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> > I see no problem with that since it
> > is their business and it is just like GMC wanting us to buy
> > more cars and Anheuser-Busch wanting us to buy more beer.
> > That is the basis of business in the US. 
>
>
> If your computer never became obsolete or stopped working, 
> would you feel a duty to buy another one?  Would you feel an 
> obligation to the computer industry to keep buying new 
> computers?  Or popcorn popppers?  Or dictionaries?
>
> Just guns, eh Schleppen?

Actually, I do buy new corn poppers, dictionaries, and computers when I 
want to, not because mine are obsolete. I also keep using the old ones 
if they work and meet my needs. I buy them much more than I buy new 
guns, since I can only use one gun at a time (well maybe two if you 
count carrying a backup as use). But more important, I do go buy those 
books that people try to ban and censor, and give money to groups 
fighting that infringement of my rights also. If someone tried to make 
me get a license to own a computer, I would be fighting it as much as I 
fight the infringements on my gun rights.

And as a final point, you would get a lot further in these discussions 
if you acted like a mature adult and used peoples proper names instead 
of making fun of everyone's name. It is just a minor irritation and does 
nothing to cause anyone to agree with you or even take you anywhere near 
seriously.

Steve Rothstein