DamnYankee wrote:

Pahleez...

I am a member of the NRA and I am very mindful of the INTENT of our
Founding Fathers. The Constitution was written with the concept of
single shot fowling rifles (which had an accuracy of less than 200 yards).

Actually, it was written with the concept of single-shot military muskets,
but that's neither here nor there. At the time privately owned cannon were
also par for the course--in fact privately owned warships mounting many
cannon were not uncommon. Further, prior to the writing of the Constitution
the US goverment was presented with at least one demonstration of a working
firearm that discharged "10-20 rounds per second". Present were several of
those who were later present at the Constitutional Convention, so to claim
that they were unaware of the possibility of the existence of such a weapon
is simple ignorance. Incidentally one seldom uses a rifle for "fowling".
One usually uses a shotgun for that purpose.

I find it incredible that people today think they can stretch this
constitutional right to include rifles which fire off 10-20 rounds per
second to ouzis, AK-47s, and single shot grenade launchers in
incomprehensible.

Look at it this way: Ouzis, AK-47 and those ilk as well as grenade
launching firearms are not defensive in purpose - they are offensive in
purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
defend yourself?

(a) What the Hell is an "Ouzi"? A squirt gun filled with a Greek liqueur?
(b) The firearms over which you express concern were in fact placed under
strict regulation in 1934. There have since been two documented cases of
the use of lawfully owned firearms of that nature being used in the
commission of a crime, and one of those was by a police officer.

Regardless, there is no "Constitutional right to defend yourself". The
right is "to keep and bear arms", possibly with some relation to a "well
regulated militia". Self defense doesn't enter into it at all. The
Supreme Court upheld the 1934 statute on the basis of a case in which
someone was charged with unlawful possession of a sawed-off shotgun, and
the wording of the ruling was that the shotgun was not protected by the
Second Amendment because it was not "within judicial notice" that such a
firearm had any relation to the maintaining of a well-regulated militia,
not because it had no utility for defensive purposes.

As we move further away from 1778, the Words & Intent of the Founding
Fathers are getting grossly slurred. The Right to Free Speech means you
have a right to speak your mind as long as it's not offensive to others.
My right to own my firearms ends when I point it at you, your family,
or your property. My right to swing my fist ends at your personal space.

Huh? That is a very inconsistent statement. The right to free speech is
the right to speak your mind _especially_ when it is offensive to the
government. Political Correctness is turning into what you say though.
But if that's what you were trying to say your expression of the other two
does not reflect the similar change in values.

Peace,

Dy
Kerry wrote:
How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
your guns.

Liberal

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)