On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:47:33 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:

I don't need the cites, I have read the amendment and I understand that
it pertains to organized militia. This is why I do not feel creating
laws prohibiting civilian ownership of assault weapons is inconsistent
with supporting the 2nd amendement, which is what your original comment
"Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he
supports the Second Amendment" implies.

You have misunderstood the text of the Second Amendment. Notice where it
says "...right of the People to keep and bear arms..."

It's not a simple misunderstanding on my part, the text is ambiguous and
consequently a much debated topic as to what the exact scope and meaning
of "the People" is.

So the People in the Second,
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.

is different than the People in not only the Preamble,

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America. "

but in the 1st,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

the 4th
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

the 9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

the 10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.

So Sar..er Adam..which unique People are they refering to in the 2nd
Amendment? Please point them out, Id like to shake their hands after
a swift strip and body cavity search. They may be armed..gasp.....

What is the definition of an assault weapon? This week? Next month? In 2
years?

A weapon intended for military use, in combat. The particular specs will
change continuously, and there is always going to be a grey area and
disagreement on where exactly the lines are drawn between personal
defense weapons or historical collectible weapons and contemporary
battlefield weapons.

Ah..Adam? There is only one meaning for the term Assault Rifle
" a select fire (meaning machine gun) military rifle firing an
intermediate cartridge"

Machine gun of course refers to any firearm capable of discharging two
or more rounds with a single pull of the trigger. An M2 50 Caliber
Browning machine gun is not an assult rifle. Nor is a BAR as it fires
a round that is more powerful than an intermediate cartridge.

Redefining a zebra as a duck, still doesnt give the poor zebra webbed
feet and feathers.

I know full well the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting, that was
precisely my point. I think using the 2nd amendment as an argument in
favor of recreational gun ownership is rediculous. Entirely new laws are
needed to regulate civilian ownership of weaponry intended only for
combat.

There are lots and lots of these laws already.

Yes, and because they cite specific technology in an attempt to draw the
aforementioned cutoff line, they need constant updating as per Kerry's
proposal.

Why do they so need any updating? And why do those laws even need to
exist?


-Adam

Im waiting with bated breath. Yawn.

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"