[TheForge] Criminal Background Check

Thu Jan 29 08:31:47 EST 2009

Grant,

While I applaud you for considering the unintended consequences of
Peter's notion, I disagree with some of your conclusions.

1st Amendment specifies "speech" and does not say how that speech is
conveyed.  Is shouting "speech"?  Is singing "speech"?  Clearly yes.
It is a very short step to inclusion of telephone etc.  And the govt.
has already curtailed radio and TV freedom of speech, so this merely
bolsters Peter's notion.

3rd Amendment clearly refers to "soldiers", without distinction.  And
even so, it does allow for lodging soldiers in your home in times of
war.  THERE's the rub!  Are we at war or not, right now?

4th Amendment does NOT include vehicles of any sort.  If you park a
mobile home and live there, it's your home.  If you drive it on the
road, the police may search it, just like they can search your car.  I
don't think they need even arrest you first, though I'm not certain of
that.  Likewise, your motel room is not protected under the 4th
amendment, except, perhaps, in the rare instance that you use it as
your permanent home.

5th Amendment:  Your drug argument is specious.  Alcohol has been know
for millennia, as have miscellaneous other psychologically active
drugs.  However, it is the 4th amendment that applies here - "The
right of the people to be secure in their persons..."

So, let's look at the 2nd Amendment:
"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."
Clearly, this applies to a Militia, not to personal armament.  The
concept is a town or county or state putting together a militia in
which the people keep their weapons.  This does not include the
concept of a personal article.  Also, what is a "weapon"?  Is an
atomic bomb a weapon?  I don't think so.  So, where do we draw the
line?  Currently, individuals are not supposed to own fully automatic
weapons, though perhaps there are exceptions.  This is reasonable
because a fully automatic weapon makes one man the equivalent of a
large number of persons not so armed.

In my opinion, there should be controls on hand guns (not that there
aren't already) because they are by their nature principally designed
for use for killing people in non-militia situations.  Furthermore, I
believe the Federal government should be intimately involved in
preventing interstate commerce of firearms where the recipient state
regulates them.  NY City has had to sue dealers in southern states
(successfully, I might add) because they were conspiring to move
weapons to NY, against NY laws.  This should not have to be a civil
action.  These are criminal actions and should be prosecuted under
RICO.

I really have no problem with reasonable hunting weapons, not that I
want anyone pointing one at me.

I fully realize others will disagree with my opinions.  I have
entertained different notions of what I might consider "good policy"
with respect to guns.  If you haven't read Robert A. Heinlein's early
novel, "Beyond this Horizon," I suggest you do.  As a novel, it's
mediocre, but it describes a society in which ordinary citizens
usually carry guns, and duels are not uncommon.  It strongly advocates
this policy.  But it also shows the consequences - "dueling" can be
used to conceal murder.  The faster draw lives, the slower dies.
Limited insurrections can easily occur, claiming many innocent lives,
though the citizens themselves may very well put them down.  It also
suggests that people would be more polite.  A very interesting
concept, but I expect the death rate would be much higher than it is
now.

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Grant Marcoux
<gblacksmith at alamedanet.net> wrote:
> Peter:  An interesting idea that civil liberties are to be considered in the
> spirit or technology of the times, with the 2nd amendment applying only to
> muzzleloaders.  Applying that logic, you could argue:
>
> That the First Amendment applies to free speech that is written or spoken,
> but not broadcast or stored on electronic media.
>
> That the 3rd amendment only applies to being forced to lodge troops in your
> home, US soldiers are another matter, since the US Army didn't exist then.
>
> That the 4th Amendment applies to the privacy of ones home, but not your
> vehicle, travel trailer, RV, airplane or motel room, since those things were
> not invented yet.
>
> That the 5th Amendment states that you cannot be compelled to be a witness
> against yourself.  Using your logic, modern drugs could be administered to
> secure your cooperation, as these substances did not exist in the Founders
> time.
>
> This could be a long list!
>
> Pete, your argument is a classic example of hyperbole....adroit, but
> misleading.  We love you anyway
>
> "They say we should register guns because we register dogs....well, nobody's
> going to register MY dog
> and nobody's going to register my dog's GUNS either"
>
> Grant
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: theforge-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:theforge-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Peter Fels &
> Phoebe Palmer
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:02 PM
> To: Blacksmithing List Sponsored by ABANA
> Subject: Re: [TheForge] Criminal Background Check
>
>
> Obviously, the registration of firearms is in contradiction to the right
> to keep and bear arms against a possibly tyrannical govt, as per the
> constitutional intent.
> \As i've written before, this was in the context of the times.
> So, inarguably, a citizen has the right to carry a hand made, muzzle
> loading, black powder firearm anywhere, any time.
> That will make most folks more respectful and polite...police included.
>
> Andrew Vida wrote:
>>
>> Mike Spencer wrote:
>>
>>> The nasty principle here isn't that someone's out to get you.  It's
>>> that once data is collected, it will be used, saved forever and used
>>> in whatever manner looks good at the time, legal or illegal, ethical
>>> or not, private or public good, profit or not.  There will always be a
>>> justification available along the same lines as the recently
>>> shitcanned DC cabal justifying torture because, well, you know, we really
>>> *really* needed to do it.
>>
>>       This is called "leverage".  Just look how it plays in politics.
>> Someone runs for office that doesn't meet muster for some interest.  The
>> next thing you know, that joint they spent a night in jail for back in
>> '73 makes headlines.  Remember Gary Hart and "Monkey Business"?  Of
>> course, in that case it was a good thing, but the principle is never
>> good, as far as I am concerned.
>>
>>> OTOH, I have to have a license with a photo (but no fingerprints) to
>>> own long guns.  At least it was a physical photo, not an automated
>>> digital database photo.  (Not that it makes a lot of difference in the
>>> long run.)
>>
>>       But do you have to register your arms in  the GWN?
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> ___________
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> ___________
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.