Re: WWFD?


DGDevin wrote:
"Ray" <rayblee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1149013542.839441.210260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sure - that too is possible. However it's not clear from your cite
that she didn't have a background check done:

In which case the spokesman for her organization went to a lot of trouble
for no reason, why dance around if they did it by the book?

I don't see where the spokesman "went to a lot of trouble for no
reason" in that context. That said, again it seems that Brady violated
the law with a "straw puchase", which FWIW for me calls her general
judgment into question.

This link is to a large, multi-page .pdf which starts with the title
"Brady Center Report Shows How Terrorists Do Their Gun-Shopping in the
USA." What, exactly, is the point that you are trying to make here,
and what, specifically, in said .pdf do you think supports your point?

It was dates, I was suggesting that if quotations from their leadership go
out of date then them referring to crimes that happened at the same time in
reference to changing today's laws should also be suspect.

Okay.... So what "quotes" from said .pdf are you refering to here to
support your position, specifically?

That's nice, albeit beside the point. That the 2nd refers does not
confer the "personal right to be armed for private purposes unrelated
to the service in a well regulated militia" is still a reasonable
interpretation of the 2nd.

Not if it wipes out the means of self-defense it isn't, as it interferes in
that Jeffersonian God-given right to life.

While Jefferson's florid prose there makes great and inspiring rhetoric
for a revolutionary manifesto (the Declaration of Independence), the
"right to life" is not in the Constitution.

What is your point here?

That even if the 2nd says what the gun folks claim it does

What if the 2nd doesn't 'say' what the gun folks claim that it does?

it becomes
meaningless if the right is choked off by laws that prevent the right from
being exercised in a meaningful sense.

True. Now #all we have to do# is agree on what that "right" is.

Let's go over that one again:

1) Nukes are arms.

Let's not, if for no other reason than no private citizen has *ever* owned
such a weapon.

###
Hmmm... I must have missed the part of the 2nd that states that the
only "arms" that the people have a right to bear are those that no
private citizen has ever owned.
###

Besides, you could justify any personal firearm if only on
recreational grounds, if someone wants to shoot a machine-gun at the
appropriate facility in the desert outside Vegas then it does no harm to
anyone, but there is no such thing as a recreational use of a nuclear
weapon.

###
Gee, I also must have missed the part of the 2nd that states that the
people have a right to bear any and all arms that can used for
recreational purposes. And without any regulatory restrictions too.
###

What is the wording of 2nd Amendment that you are reading, DG?

We don't even need to use nukes here: we could use any number of other
restricted weaponry, such as, say, various types of "conventional"
explosive devices. If one agrees that the restriction any one of those
forms of "arms" is not in violation of the 2nd, then one agrees that
the 2nd allows restrictions on an individual's "right to bear arms."

Not at all. You could justify restrictions on such weapons purely because
they contain explosives that require expert knowledge to even be stored
safely much less used,

###
Damn, I also must have missed the part of the 2nd that states that the
Govt has the right to regulate only those arms that require expert
knowledge to even be stored safely much less used.
###

Also: does it really require more "expert knowledge" to store and use
every type regulated explosives than it does to to store and use every
type of firearm?

When the framers wrote the 2nd they were
referring to firearms

What about cannons and ships?

Also: they didn't have machine guns back then, so the Framers weren't
specifically referring to them. In your mind is the right to bear
machine guns therefore not protected by the second?

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: WWFD?
    ... Nukes are arms. ... if for no other reason than no private citizen has *ever* owned ... such a weapon. ... explosives, I had the *weapon* I just didn't have the ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: A well regulated militia or any individual
    ... The rest of us see "the right to keep and bear arms ... not intended to be the ONLY reason they believed the right to bear ... government of limited and enumerated powers. ... Personal gun ownership to keep the government under control is like the ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A well regulated militia or any individual
    ... The rest of us see "the right to keep and bear arms ... not intended to be the ONLY reason they believed the right to bear ... government of limited and enumerated powers. ... Personal gun ownership to keep the government under control is like the ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A well regulated militia or any individual
    ... The rest of us see "the right to keep and bear arms ... not intended to be the ONLY reason they believed the right to bear ... government of limited and enumerated powers. ... I don't think reasonable gun regulation would prevent the people from ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A well regulated militia or any individual
    ... The rest of us see "the right to keep and bear arms shall ... not intended to be the ONLY reason they believed the right to bear ... government of limited and enumerated powers. ... But shotguns and single-shot deer rifles are of limited use against battle rifles, so they needed to get the guns from the armory. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)