Re: Silveira DENIED Certiorari

Stephan Rothstein wrote:
> 
> 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?

All Amendments in the Constitution are speaking about the same people,
ALL of the people.
All Amendments in the Constitution are equally important.




> >>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


-- 
""Sic Semper Tyrannis" - Thus Always with Tyrants - John Wilkes Booth"

"Per ardua nec flectitur nec mutat. Confido, 
est voluntas dei, invictus maneo. Addere leci justitiam 
deo certavi et vici." - Rev. Shawn Cole, Cole Firearms Inc.