Re: WAAAY OT: Politics (Liberal Leaning)


"Fred Burton" <fburton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:eo0gv8$27k0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dano wrote in message ...

<DonFromBarre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:25699-45A283CB-582@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MCDuck says:
<<Interesting that people talk about the constitutional right to bear
arms. The 2d amendment provides "the right of the people to keep and
bear arms," but that is not any absolute right. At most, it is a right
not to have the Federal government take away arms.>>

I don't know. Provides" 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'
sure sounds absolute to me.


It's not that long an amendment. But it's not quite so absolute. Here it
is:

"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."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amen
dmentii

<<Even that matter is disputed, some constitutional scholars, with some
somewhat ambiguous support from the Supreme Court, take the position
that the protection was for state militias, not for individuals. I'll
not enter that debate.>>

The state militia point is the one I was alluding to. And what has
always struck me about it is that it seems those taking this attitude
are often not Americans. At least in my personal experience.

--
I can certainly see how this could be interpreted different ways. For
example, what would be considered arms? Could a State Militia maintain a
nuclear arsenal to insure the Federal Government not get to pushy? I'm
obviously using an extreme example to illustrate the point...I hope. Did
the founding fathers anticipate assault weapons and nukes?


The muskets that the Minutemen carried were the "assault weapons" of their
era.


Right. That's the point. Yet they could have simply, clearly said that every citizen had a right to own and carry one...but they didn't now did they? They obscured it by wording it in such a way (I believe deliberately) to allow future generations to interpret the wording to fit the current circumstances. Why else would they not simply state it? I believe that "States rights" had more to do with it than individual rights. BTW...though you call me one of those leftards frequently, I'm NOT in favor of disarming our citizens. I just don't favor the proliferation becoming so casual that 12 year olds have fairly easy access to them. Perhaps we need much more serious penalties for allowing guns to get into their hands in the first place.

.