[TheForge] Criminal Background Check
Andrew Vida
osan at netlabs.net
Thu Jan 29 10:40:46 EST 2009
Bruce Freeman wrote:
> 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.
Quite wholly incorrect, I am afraid. First of all, the SCOTUS has been
unequivocal on the issue, directly and otherwise, in several rulings.
The right is most clearly an individual one.
The misconceptions on this stem from the general ignorance of proper
English grammar on the part of most people. This was addressed about 20
years ago by a leading linguist, who did the analysis of the amendment.
He concluded that the right was recognized as individual and not
collective. The upshot of the analysis was that the second clause, "the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed." is in no way *dependent* upon the first, "A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" for its
meaning. Rather, the first clause is given as a *sufficient* condition
for the second, and not the sole one.
IOW, in contemporary vernacular we might rewrite the second as so:
The fact that a well trained militia, i.e., all fe/males between the
ages of 17 and 45, is necessary to our ability to defend our freedoms;
this is sufficient cause to guarantee the individual right to keep and
bear arms, though by no means the only one so justifying.
> 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.
Incorrect for the reasons cited above.
>
Also, what is a "weapon"? Is an
> atomic bomb a weapon?
This is a very tired old tactic of the anti-gun lobby, which has been
so thoroughly demolished that one should be ashamed for even attempting
it. Shame on thee, Bruce Freeman.
I don't think so. So, where do we draw the
> line? Currently, individuals are not supposed to own fully automatic
> weapons,
Nonsense. I can buy one today and own it - hell, *carry* it, if I so
choose. the only additional requirement is payment of a $200 tax stamp.
Automatic weapons are restricted under TAX laws ONLY. It was an end
run around the second amendment.
I can pay $9 and legally saw my shotgun barrels down to 10" and carry
them for personal self defense if I so choose.
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.
An irrelevant point where rights are concerned, not to mention that it
is plainly incorrect.
>
> 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.
Jesus Bruce, you sound like a poster child for HCI. You are
regurgitating every fallacious notion they have ever spewed forth onto
the public forum.
First of all, intended purpose is irrelevant to the question of rights.
Second, there is only one purpose behind any firearm in terms of
design - to place a projectile on a target. That target could be paper,
a steel silhouette, another human being, a deer.
Kitchen knives are ostensibly designed fro the preparation of food, yet
I can still use it as an item of self defense. My M16 is designed as a
military weapon, but it does NOTHING that any other gun does, in
principle. It pushes a projectile down the bore and that is it. The
difference lies *solely* with the person using it - *their* intent,
*their* sense of responsible action.
> 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.
If you want to get all legally proper, then let us not forget that the
Constitution unequivocally states that each state shall give equal
weight and respect for the laws of every other state. Therefore, if I
am legally permitted to carry a gun in WV, then I am legally permitted
to do so in NYC. The Sullivan Law is wholly and unequivocally
unconstitutional on that basis alone.
>
> I really have no problem with reasonable hunting weapons, not that I
> want anyone pointing one at me.
But not for self defense?
>
> 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.
There are literally tens of MILLIONS of people in the USA carrying guns
on a daily and legal basis. I am one of them. I have yet to hear of a
single duel anywhere on the soil of the USA. Back in 1990 when Florida
passed their CCW law, the antigun squeams were shrieking for all they
were worth about how the streets would be running red with blood. ABC
even made a TV movie about it where the very last scene shows some yahoo
with two six-guns strapped on stepping out into the street to mow down a
terrified unarmed citizen in showdown-style. Of course the predictions
were all nonsense and now 38 of 50 states have CCW laws. most of those
38 states have consistently lower crime stats than the other 12. Make
of that what you will.
> this policy. But it also shows the consequences - "dueling" can be
> used to conceal murder.
Dueling has been illegal for 150 years +/-. It IS murder - legally
speaking.
> The faster draw lives, the slower dies.
No. The one who puts his shot on target does.
> Limited insurrections can easily occur, claiming many innocent lives,
> though the citizens themselves may very well put them down.
How many isurrections have you experienced in your lifetime? AFAIK
there have been exactly zero since either you or I have been alive, save
perhaps the civil rights marches, but those were not armed - so what are
you worrying yourself over?
> 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.
You are not living on planet earth. In WV at least 25% of the people
carry guns on a regular basis. The violent crime rate is far lower than
in NJ. Petty crime is high, but that is an unrelated issue. People
here are far and away more polite than the average NJ person. Here 2
years and I have YET to see a SINGLE public outburst. No ONE middle
finger incident, thus far. In NJ I saw them all the time. I will go
out on a limb and say perhaps 100 per year, most of them in traffic.
I can say the same from my experiences in AZ. Far higher level of
general good manners there than NJ or NY. No canoes wading in the blood
in the streets.
You and I have had this discussion before. I thought you'd learned
better. Apparently you need another ass beating.
>
>
> 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
>> ___________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
-Andy Vida
Proof Technologies Inc.
IV&V
Project and Program Management
(304) 466-0789
/\
__ / \ __
\ \/ /\ \/ /
\ \/ \ \/
/\_\__/\ \
/ ____/ /_ \
/_/ \ / \_\
\/
More information about the TheForge
mailing list