On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:55:15 -0400, "Mecoman"
wrote:

Crossposting removed

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 17:12:19 +0000 (UTC), John Henry
wrote:

I *wish* that governments and individuals were so inherently trustworthy
that the 'just in case' mentality that the Second Amendment is based on
was unnecessary.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is about
the States regulating firearms so as to have their own
private military, if desired, and their own wars.
Remember hearing of the Civil War or the Toledo War?

It's not at all about YOU being able to have any
firepower on your own or for your own purposes.

The Second Amendment is open to interpretation.

And for well over 100 years the courts have stated as I
stated it seems.
Don't fall for the NRA propaganda.

Nor should you hide your lamps G.

[
Amendment II

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.

]

The United States of America can also be considered a free State. The
'people' can be interpreted to mean individual people, or people united
together in a 'State.'

The courts long ago spoke quite clearly. This is a State's rights
issue, not much more.

I'm quite certain that your interpretation of the Bible does not quite agree
with Bush's interpretation.

??

Right or wrong, the more common understanding of the Second Amendment is
that individual people have the right to keep and bear arms. Subsequent
legislation has tempered that right in an effort to safeguard the people
from those who would use that right in harmful ways but, interpretation
aside, responsible citizens do have that right.

Not any sort of absolute one at all.
Only as regulated by their States and local governments.
Just like almost anything else EXCEPT the feds cannot much
regulate what the States do. Much ..... unless the States take a
bit of the fed's money, I suppose.

I don't know of any State Militias in our country, unless you consider that
the National Guard is under State control. It is still a branch of the
Federal defense system though, and cannot be used by one State against
another.

Well, perhaps if you are not in the State's Militia you cannot have
guns to bring to their wars.

But if your kids or you go to those of the neocons buy them their
own body armor to take. I gather this is sort of like a later day
version of the 2nd.

The only logical answer I can see to the gun problem is to limit those who
can carry them.

You could stop making & selling guns & buy them back.

You would have to get the guns away from the criminals and
unstable owners, test carefully before allowing 'responsible' citizens to
own them, and make certain that those 'responsible' citizens are truly
responsible, both in using and owning the weapons, and in not allowing them
to get into the hands of the 'irresponsible' citizens. Of course this would,
by definition, eliminate the need for those 'responsible' citizens to have
them in the first place, but let's assume it could be done.

The problems are then twofold. The NRA, for example, would have to be able
to work WITH the government to assure that those who can obtain weapons are
truly responsible. And we have to remember that the gun companies are in the
business of making and selling as many guns as possible to make money. They
would probably have to be subsidized or taken over by the government.

That raises other questions, which are for others to discuss if desired.

Have the neocons already given away money to the NRA?
--
Clif