Cobol - Re: Well at least this groups is more interesting than ...

Author

Re: Well at least this groups is more interesting than ...

Alistair

2008-02-16, 7:55 am

On 16 Feb, 03:43, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> When I posted this on "tx.guns" several responses were like yours. Some were
> along the lines of "That's why I don't go to Walmart" and "Why didn't you
> put a couple through the roof?" It's a pretty eclectic group, pretty much
> like this one - only one female posts regularily and there's the occassional
> drive-by troll. Then, of course, ordinary news reports get folks all
> exercised.
>
> For example, in response to the University of Northern Illinois shooting,
> one of the ususal suspect anti-gun groups proposed legislation requiring gun
> stores to notify universities anytime a student buys a gun. This generated
> some non-nice things being said by our pro-gun folks.
>
> There's cat stories, stupid pubic servant stories, stories about cats AND
> stupid public servants, a running tally of Tasercides, stupid criminal
> stories, stories that defy description [Like the one today where the
> Canadian RCMP report finding a third human foot washing up on the beach in
> 18 months. Each was wearing a sneaker. An RCMP constable was quoted as "this
> is somewhat unusual."], stories about police work, happenings at the range,
> happenings at work involving guns, etc.
>
> Guns stir debate. In a country of 300 million people, there are 200 million
> guns. 40% of American households have a firearm.There are rational arguments
> and emotional arguments on the subject - not about guns so much, but about
> the rules and laws. Some debates reduce down to bumper sticker slogans: "I
> carry a gun because I can't carry a cop" or "When seconds count, the police
> are just minutes away" or "9-1-1 Dial-A-Prayer" or "Keep honking - I'm
> reloading."
>
> Here's one story that's a biggie. Washington D.C. has banned the private
> possession of handguns since 1976. Finally a case challenging this situation
> has percolated up to the Supreme Court which will hear arguments in early
> March. The case has generated an unprecedented number of friend-of-the-court
> briefs arguing one side or the other. Briefs have been filed by retired
> generals, various anti-gun groups, linguists, gays, feminists, racial
> equality advocates, Jews, sportsmen, private detectives, pediatricians,
> surgeons, 31 (of 50) state attorneys general, the Solicitor General of the
> United States, a majority of Congress, big city mayors, and even Dick
> Cheney, the Vice President of the United States. Fascinating reading.
>
> Anyway, as I said, the court will hear arguments in early March and a
> decision is expected in early to mid-June (just in time for the presidential
> election campaign). Oh, I forgot: The issue before the court is whether the
> D.C. government CAN ban handguns under the U.S. Constitution (2nd Amendment:
> "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed.").- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Try adding another bumper sticker:

Guns - the great leveller.

As for bearing arms, doesn't that only apply to members of legitimate
militias?

Howard Brazee

2008-02-18, 6:55 pm

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 03:27:38 -0800 (PST), Alistair
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>As for bearing arms, doesn't that only apply to members of legitimate
>militias?

It doesn't actually say that. I figure that clause was to define
"arms", so that we don't think it is limited to swords or hunting
weapons. But some people think it is used to define "people", saying
that only authorized people should have weapons.

I've even seen some people say that it is used to define "arms" - but
to include only weapons suitable for an 18th century militia.

But if the objective of using arms to ensure "the security of a free
state", muskets aren't effective.

(While I wouldn't mind seeing this amendment repealed - times have
changed - I mind very much people pretending that the Constitution
doesn't mean what it says, and can be ignored or mangled).

2008-02-18, 6:55 pm

In article <ro9jr3hm4qvsnd7fajqgum6vmusfjvsoto@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

[snip]

>I've even seen some people say that it is used to define "arms" - but
>to include only weapons suitable for an 18th century militia.

That makes about as much sense as saying freedom of the press includes
only mechanisms available to Gutenberg or Zenger... and I know of *nobody*
who has made that argument.

DD

2008-02-18, 6:55 pm

In article <ro9jr3hm4qvsnd7fajqgum6vmusfjvsoto@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

[snip]

>I've even seen some people say that it is used to define "arms" - but
>to include only weapons suitable for an 18th century militia.

That would seem to make as much sense as saying the freedom of the press
specified in the immediately preceding Amendment applies only to
mechanisms familiar to Gutenberg or Zenger... and I know of *nobody* who
has made such an argument.

DD

HeyBub

2008-02-18, 6:56 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <ro9jr3hm4qvsnd7fajqgum6vmusfjvsoto@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> That would seem to make as much sense as saying the freedom of the
> press specified in the immediately preceding Amendment applies only to
> mechanisms familiar to Gutenberg or Zenger... and I know of *nobody*
> who has made such an argument.
>

The United States Supreme Court said someting close in Miller when they said
a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon normally used by the military.

Howard Brazee

2008-02-18, 6:56 pm

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:07:37 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>The United States Supreme Court said someting close in Miller when they said
>a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon normally used by the military.

This fits closer to the definition of "arms" that require that it be
suited for a militia - without being limited to the 18th century
militia, where the fit might actually be better.

It's the "right to bear muskets" argument which Doc and I are agreeing
that doesn't make sense.

2008-02-18, 9:56 pm

In article <13rjpc3iepjpp61@corp.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>The United States Supreme Court said someting close in Miller when they said
>a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon normally used by the military.

According to
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...ol=307&page=174>
the Supreme Court of the United States of America opined (among other
things):

--begin quoted text:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a
'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this
time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of
a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

--end quoted text

Whether this is 'something close' - or even vaguely capable of being
related - to 'saying the freedom of the press specified in the immediately
preceding Amendment applies only to mechanisms familiar to Gutenberg or
Zenger' will be left to the interpretation of The Reader.

DD

Sponsored Links