On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:33:44 -0400, "Mecoman"
wrote:

The idea of psychological testing, background checks, etc. as a prelude to
gun ownership does not have to mean an infringement on rights. Those who are
truly not threats to society would have no problem being cleared to own
weapons, while those who should not could be determined and prevented from
having the means to do harm.

I highly doubt that any such "tests" would be either functional
or effective.
Birth to death tracking of guns plus annual per gun fees might
help. Loose a gun & get a $10,000 fine (removed from your
posted $10,000 per gun gun-bond) .... and/or jail time.

"Fingerprinting" the guns might help too. Find bullet, find
who is supposed to have the gun ....

Find a really wealthy nut or violent criminal in the first place
....

For the better class of hobbiest:
The "metalstorm" fires at almost a million rounds per minute
http://www.metalstorm.com/04_the_technology.html and
for the more intense self-defense you have the 50 calibre
rifles.
--
Cliff
--
Cliff

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

Cliff, , whose name means "stinks of ****; has pierced
dick and shoves a dildo up his arse", erupted:
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.

Real meaning: "The courts agree with me, but don't you dare ask for a cite,
just take my word for it."

Don't fall for the NRA propaganda.

Real meaning: "Fall for mine instead."

Nor should you hide your lamps G.

Real meaning: "G is for Gay."

[
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.

Real meaning: "There I go again, making unsubstantiated claims and
unsopported assertions. Just don't get rude and ask for a cite. And
certainly don't ask me to argue my case as to why the cite, which I cannot
provide, supports my position. You will just have to do your own research
and arrive at the exact same conclusion I did. Sorry, but that's the way
this discussion/debate thingy works."

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

??

Real meaning: "Even though I make a whole load of **** up, I am unable to
make some **** up at this point in time."

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.

Real meaning: "Just like the words 'exactly' and 'specific', 'absolute' is
not in my vocabulary either."

Only as regulated by their States and local governments.

Real meaning: "There I go again, making unsubstantiated claims and
unsopported assertions. Please, just believe me. OK?"

Just like almost anything else EXCEPT the feds cannot much
regulate what the States do.

Real meaning: "There I go again, making unsubstantiated claims and
unsopported assertions. Please, just believe me. OK?"

Much ..... unless the States take a
bit of the fed's money, I suppose.

Real meaning: "Ah, it's come back to me... I made some **** up."

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.

Real meaning: "yep, it's certainly come back to me... I made some more ****
up."

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.

Real meaning: "I have a complete armoury, inherited from my father. I want
to get rich quick and if guns are the way, then so be it."

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?

Real meaning: "I'm losing this argument and don't have a leg to stand on so
I'll ask another daft question."