Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:32:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
205 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> This point has been debated here before. It turns on the intent of the
> authors. I can't cite the particular Paper, but the Federalist papers
> speak to this point. It also turns on the meaning of "well regulated"
> (and of Militia) which many hold not to mean what we moderns think they
> do.
I'll clarify my point if it was a little murky: Frank stated the purpose of the
2nd amendment was for the populace to keep the government in check (or words to
that effect). That may have have been in part what the 2nd amendment is about,
but I disagree that is what it is solely about.
"Well regulated" and "Militia" are certainly open to interpretation, though it
seems to me that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow guns to the
general populace.
Bruce
>
> Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> >
> > > The reason for opposition of gun registry comes down to what the purpose
> > > of the 2nd amendment is presumed to be, that of assuring that the
> > > populace can be armed as a defence against an out of control government
> > > (an understanding which I agree with, unlikely as it seems that it would
> > > ever occur (1)). The problem with gun registration is that then the
> > > government knows where all the guns (supposedly) are when they decide to
> > > start depriving us of our rights and start confiscating guns.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Rereading this, I'm not quite sure where I agree with your stated purpose of
> > the 2nd amendment. I'm sure that it has that effect, but its purpose was • not
> > to act as a safeguard against an out-of-control government. It speaks more • of
> > a lack of a standing army and being a frontier country (at the time) than
> > anything.
> >
> > Bruce
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
> http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
> fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
>
> Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) I'll again go back to what was written in the federalist papers. I plowed through them a few months back, so it's a fairly recent memory... I can't deny that there may have been other motives than the final check but that was the biggie, by a (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
| This point has been debated here before. It turns on the intent of the authors. I can't cite the particular Paper, but the Federalist papers speak to this point. It also turns on the meaning of "well regulated" (and of Militia) which many hold not (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
