Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS][RELIGION] a top 20 story at reddit.com...

["Vern Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Coincidentally, for those who think it is preposterous for every
person to be required to own a weapon. You only need look at
Switzerland as proof that gun ownership != high crime rates.

It is hard to compare the US to Switzerland, but it is much easier to
compare France to Switzerland, and how many times has France been
invaded?

On 3/4/06, Vern Green <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> Well, I rarely do that, in fact, I see people truncating the end off
> of it more often. Since the statement "the right of the people" is
> usually counter to what gun control supporters stand for.
>
>
>
> On 3/4/06, Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> > On 3/4/06, Vern Green <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> > >
> > > The ACLU takes the stance, as I have read in the past, that the 2nd
> > > Amendment only applies to the states rights to maintain a militia,
> > > e.g. The National Guard". This is why they will not take on any single
> > > person's right to own a weapon despite the 2nd amendments statement
> > > that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
> > > infringed."
> >
> > So I ask myself why people always truncate the statement of such a
> > very brief ammendment.  Here's the full text:
> >
> >          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.
> >
> > Needless to say, the meaning of this is not exactly pellucid.  I
> > always find it quite interesting to see the tactics used by advocacy
> > organizations on behalf of their ideas.  The NRA does *Not* generally
> > challenge laws in court, but rather works to defeat legislature in the
> > first place.  To me, this is the activity pattern of an organization
> > whose lawyers are not very sure they have a good case, because
> > otherwise the establishment of a strong legal precedent should be far
> > more powerful than having to mess around with Congress and dozens of
> > state legislatures.  If the NRA ever lost a landmark case in court,
> > they'd be pretty hosed.
>
> Sounds pretty much like just about every activist group out there. It
> is much easier to manipulate those who have to be elected and need
> money for their election causes than it is a lifetime appointment to a
> court. Activism is why we have the political mess we have in those
> country. Furthermore, the federal government has stuck its nose in so
> many places it should have kept itself out of that now a majority of
> the activism takes place at the federal level. It is easier to get a
> law passed that effects every state with one fell-swoop than it is to
> go to 50 state legislatures and get that law passed.
>
> This is why it is much easier to fight gun control at the Federal
> level. If the Federal Government comes out and passes a law that says
> there will be no 30 day waiting periodss for instance, that it is
> against the law to have a 30 day waiting period, then all the states
> that currently require such a waiting period would not be able to
> enforce their laws.
>
> I really do not like this system, because it creates an opportunity
> for that kind of legislation to go the other way as well as we saw too
> often under Clinton.
>
> >
> > That said, if the Supremes had to rule on a real 2nd Amendment case,
> > my guess is that they might surprise a lot of people on both sides of
> > these issues.
>
> At this moment in time it is a toss-up. Chances are they would refuse
> to hear the case like they have done so many times in the past, but
> there are some cases that could potentially come before the court.
>
> When we look at the 1939 case of Miller vs the US, I found this line
> in the ruling very interesting:
>
> "The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was
> composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon
> this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the
> laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of
> acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for
> service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
> themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''
>
> So that is an interesting statement, "in common use at the time" you
> see the court case that started all of this was over a sawed off
> shotgun, it was ruled that since a sawed off shotgun was not in common
> use at the time, then the individual was not protected in his
> ownership of said weapon.
>
> Interestingly enough, if you read the court's decision another way, it
> would require every person to own a weapon that is currently being
> used by the military today.
>
> So how would the court rule on a case if it came before them today?
> With the current line-up on the bench it might prove to be very
> interesting indeed.
>
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
>
> --
> Thanks
> F Vernon Green
>


--
Thanks
F Vernon Green

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion