Re: OT: Right to bear arms

"Jason McNorton" <jmcno@xxxxxxxxx> stated in post
MPG.22cf3c6b34f758ae989689@xxxxxxxxx on 6/27/08 5:06 PM:

In article <C48ACAFA.C393F%usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
"Jason McNorton" <jmcno@xxxxxxxxx> stated in post
MPG.22cf318fe85a955e989688@xxxxxxxxx on 6/27/08 4:23 PM:

In article <C48AAC86.C38C2%usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
"Maveric" <Maveric@xxxxxxx> stated in post
0s2dnS6laNN8y_jVnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx on 6/27/08 2:15 PM:

Snit wrote:

Ok, I have now had a time to at least take a short look at the Supreme
Court
ruling on the Second Amendment. Here is my take (since others brought up
their lies and distortions about my views I figured I would clear the
air):

First, my past comments on the second amendment:

-----
Would you have a problem with my stockpiling anthrax, nuclear
bombs, and other arms in my basement?
The question is *not* should we limit arms - the question is
where should the limit be.

Maybe the terms used for these are in error. Should be relabeled as WMDs
as
the Bush admin calls them and not arms.

How do you decide which is which? Certainly a machine gun can do mass
destruction...

Look at Japan, a truck and a knife killed 7 just a few weeks ago.
Airplanes killed 3000 in about 2 hours.

We can't just ban our way to safety when it comes to inanimate objects.

Do you disagree with the Supreme Court about the legality of having limits?
Do you think any arm is OK? Do you have any problem with me having my stock
pile of nukes and ricin?

I don't mind you have any firearm, and that's what this is about.

Why change the topic from *arms*, which is what the Second Amendment talks
about, to *firearms*.

Really makes no sense.

In fact, the court said 'unusual' weapons aren't protected. Sort of like
cruel and unusual punishment.

So any new weapon should be illegal?

We also recognize another important limitation on the right
to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained,
that the sorts of weapons protected were those ³in common use
at the time.² 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation
is fairly supported by the historical tradition of
prohibiting the carrying of ³dangerous and unusual weapons.²

One weakness of the current wording is that new weapons are, clearly, not in
common use... so how can they ever be legal? How did the weapons that were
not in common use at the time but have since been invented become legal? It
is like amnesty for guns... OK, they might not have been legal since they
were not commonly used but since they have made it into the public enough to
now be common we shall call them legal.

I bet most of the same folks who support the amnesty for these weapons would
be against amnesty for humans who are now a common part of the US society.
Just a little ironic. :)

But still, this is a great victory for all citizens. The case wasn't
about nukes, it was about keeping guns in your home. If they went off
like liberal judges often do and started with activism, I'd have been
upset.

As I have noted, the decision was very much consistent with my views.

If you claim you agree with me I am not sure why you argue with me so much!


--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What does the Second Amendment really mean?
    ... stocks of illegal and illicit weapons in the US. ... are often surprised at the way the Second Amendment is used to justify ... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be ... This is surely a very long way from restricting the Federal government ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Guns make us safer
    ... The term "the people" as used in the second amendment means the very ... Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, ... They are all "arms". ... That generally means swords, knives and guns ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: 9th Circuit extends 2nd Amendment
    ... arms is a bulwark against external invasion.That we have a lawfully ... Concurrence by Judge Gould in the Second Amendment ...   First, as Judge O'Scannlain has aptly explained, the rights secured by the ... All weapons are not "arms" within the meaning of the ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Guns make us safer
    ... The term "the people" as used in the second amendment means the very ... Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, ... They are all "arms". ... That generally means swords, knives and guns ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: OT: Right to bear arms
    ... my past comments on the second amendment: ... The question is *not* should we limit arms - the question is ... And the first line of the Supreme Court opinion: ... concealed weapons, specific areas, conditions of sale, etc. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)