On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:50:38 -0800, Hawke
wrote:


I remember where you stand. And if you remember what I said about it before
the Court heard the Heller case, you'll recall that Scalia wrote it almost
exactly as I called it. d8-)

Yeah, I know. But that alone ought to give you pause. Scalia is so far
to the right that using him to bolster your argument is pretty shaky. In
fact, on most issues if Scalia is for something I'm again it. It's kind
of like saying Bork agrees with me. I think it's kind of funny that this
issue has actually caused such a controversy. Like I said before, the
issue is basically a question of whether the Second Amendment was meant
to protect a citizen's right to bear arms. Either it was or it was not.
Either it protects the citizen from the government's intruding on his
ability to buy and own guns or it doesn't. It's really just a matter of
deciding it's one or the other. It's what happens after making the
decision that really matters.

If you say it doesn't give citizens the right to protect them from the
government taking away their guns then you go down the road to a country
with an unarmed public and all that implies regarding government power
compared to that of the people. If you say the amendment does give
citizens the right to protection from unreasonable restrictions on their
right to buy and own guns then you have a very different country. So how
you decide this issue has a lot of ramifications down the line. I think
the powers that be have been afraid to make this decision not that they
don't understand what the amendment means. I also think that we're
getting to a point where the choice which way we're going to go on this
issue is coming to a head, and right now it is looking like we're going
to choose the option where the Constitution does protect the citizens'
individual right to bear arms, and I don't just mean federally but all
across the country. Twenty years ago I wouldn't have believed we would
ever head in this direction. But I'm glad we are.

Hawke


I believe that you are making a fundamental error in thinking that the
people who wrote the Constitution were anticipating today's
circumstances and attempting to prevent a government taking away a
right to own a gun is for no other reason then in the 1770's gun
ownership was not seen as a right in the colonies. It was simply
another tool, one might say. Can you imagine a law to protect your
"right" to own a shovel?

The laws/regulations/ of several of the earliest colonies are still
available and in none of which I have looked at are there any
regulations concerning ownership of guns. Excepting sale to or repair
of guns in the hands of Indians. Some regulations about firing guns
after dark, really anti-noise regulations. It is obvious that in the
1700's there was no "right" to own a gun, or a knife, or a shovel,
axe, posthole digger or any other tool.

This is not to say that modern day law may not interpret the writing
differently then its originally meaning - "cruel and unusual
punishment" originally meant no Hanging, drawing, and quartering. Not
it means that they took away your color T.V., or making the prisoners
actually perform work
Regards,

J.B.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:50:38 -0800, Hawke
wrote:


I remember where you stand. And if you remember what I said about it
before
the Court heard the Heller case, you'll recall that Scalia wrote it
almost
exactly as I called it. d8-)

Yeah, I know. But that alone ought to give you pause. Scalia is so far
to the right that using him to bolster your argument is pretty shaky. In
fact, on most issues if Scalia is for something I'm again it. It's kind
of like saying Bork agrees with me. I think it's kind of funny that this
issue has actually caused such a controversy. Like I said before, the
issue is basically a question of whether the Second Amendment was meant
to protect a citizen's right to bear arms. Either it was or it was not.
Either it protects the citizen from the government's intruding on his
ability to buy and own guns or it doesn't. It's really just a matter of
deciding it's one or the other. It's what happens after making the
decision that really matters.

If you say it doesn't give citizens the right to protect them from the
government taking away their guns then you go down the road to a country
with an unarmed public and all that implies regarding government power
compared to that of the people. If you say the amendment does give
citizens the right to protection from unreasonable restrictions on their
right to buy and own guns then you have a very different country. So how
you decide this issue has a lot of ramifications down the line. I think
the powers that be have been afraid to make this decision not that they
don't understand what the amendment means. I also think that we're
getting to a point where the choice which way we're going to go on this
issue is coming to a head, and right now it is looking like we're going
to choose the option where the Constitution does protect the citizens'
individual right to bear arms, and I don't just mean federally but all
across the country. Twenty years ago I wouldn't have believed we would
ever head in this direction. But I'm glad we are.

Hawke


I believe that you are making a fundamental error in thinking that the
people who wrote the Constitution were anticipating today's
circumstances and attempting to prevent a government taking away a
right to own a gun is for no other reason then in the 1770's gun
ownership was not seen as a right in the colonies. It was simply
another tool, one might say. Can you imagine a law to protect your
"right" to own a shovel?

The laws/regulations/ of several of the earliest colonies are still
available and in none of which I have looked at are there any
regulations concerning ownership of guns. Excepting sale to or repair
of guns in the hands of Indians. Some regulations about firing guns
after dark, really anti-noise regulations. It is obvious that in the
1700's there was no "right" to own a gun, or a knife, or a shovel,
axe, posthole digger or any other tool.

This is not to say that modern day law may not interpret the writing
differently then its originally meaning - "cruel and unusual
punishment" originally meant no Hanging, drawing, and quartering. Not
it means that they took away your color T.V., or making the prisoners
actually perform work
Regards,

J.B.

That's a very interesting perspective. You'll notice, though, that guns were
different enough from shovels and butter churns that the right to own them
was addressed 'way back in English common law. And we operated largely under
common law at the time the Constitution was written.

--
Ed Huntress