[TheForge] Criminal Background Check POL

[Peter Fels & Phoebe Palmer]

Well spoken Bruce;
Less tongue in cheek...
RE the 2nd amendment.
The British, during the revolution, had adroitly snatched a critical 
armory early in the game, my historian bro-in-law tells me, leaving us 
badly bent over. Once was enough.
Being, um, under-armed was a great disadvantage which the writers of our 
constitution vividly remembered...in case it again became necessary to 
to take up arms against a tyrannical government.
I think that's the context of the second amendment.
I think our govt needs to be a bit afraid and therefore solidly 
respectful of it's citizens.  pf

Bruce Freeman wrote:
> 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
>> ___________
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>