[TheForge] Criminal Background Check

[Jack Elliott]

You don't get it do you Bruce...
The object of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that the federal  
government would  never, without our consent at least, be more  
powerful than the people it represents.
So yes, "The people" were able to obtain and posses the most  
technologically advanced weapons of the day for their own use,  
whatever that might be. And that IS how the framers intended it.
Should it apply to pineapple grenades? AKs? C4? Howitzers? M1-A1  
Abrahms? And so on and so forth?
In its strictest reading absolutely!
Because We the people were intended to be the army of the United States.
Have other things affected our daily lives so as to make that both  
impractical and improbable, as well as outright dangerous in some  
cases? You Bet! But that doesn't make it not so.
Jeesh!

On Jan 30, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Bruce Freeman wrote:

> Andy,
>
> It's not really the "infringing" part that I mean to question. It's
> the definition of "arms".
>
> In 1776, a musket or rifle was really not that powerful a weapon.  The
> firing rate was perhaps twice a minute, IF someone was guarding you
> while you reloaded.  Without the bayonet, an army of musketmen would
> not have been so effective.
>
> So fast forward to today and we find that "arms"  could include fully
> automatic weapons with any sort of load.  Somehow I don't think that's
> what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Andy Gladish  
> <gladish at cablerocket.com> wrote:
>> Bruce, you and I are about right in line in how we'd like the law to
>> behave in regard to firearms.
>> Still, your letter is just one more attempt to "prove" that the  
>> phrase
>> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be  
>> infringed"
>> means something other than "the right of the people to keep and  
>> bear arms
>> shall not be infringed."
>>
>> To 'Infringe' means to trespass upon- not to remove or negate, but  
>> to step
>> even upon the edges of.
>>
>> My understanding of this article is that even if the first phrase  
>> was, "In
>> order that people who like to have guns shall have all the things  
>> that go
>> boom that they want" it would still be the law of the land as  
>> written, and
>> apply to us all until amended by legal process.
>>
>> in·fringe      (ĭn-frĭnj')  Pronunciation Key
>> v.   in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
>>
>> v.   tr.
>> To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract;
>> infringe a patent.
>> Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
>> v.   intr.
>> To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an  
>> increased
>> workload that infringed on his personal life.
>>
>> [Latin īnfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 +  
>> frangere,
>> to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European roots.]
>> in·fring'er n.
>>
>> The American Heritage(R) Dictionary of the English Language,  
>> Fourth Edition
>> Copyright (c) 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
>> Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> Andy G.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Manage membership or unsubscribe at:
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
>> theforge mail list group photo site is
>> http://www.photoaccess.com
>> Login:  blacksmithblacksmith at hotmail.com
>> password:  anvil
>> ___________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Bruce
> NJ
>
> The total lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy  
> is working.
> _______________________________________________
> Manage membership or unsubscribe at:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> theforge mail list group photo site is
> http://www.photoaccess.com
> Login:  blacksmithblacksmith at hotmail.com
> password:  anvil
> ___________
>
>