Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 1999 16:30:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
894 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lee Jorgensen writes:
> Mike Stanley wrote:
>
> > <everything snipped>
>
> I would have to agree with Mike. The biggest problem with
> gun legislation, is that it's in the second amendment of the US
> Constitution. Spelled out specifically.
It says: "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."
Now, what is a militia? According to dictionary.com, militia means "In the
widest sense, the whole military force of a nation, including both those
engaged in military service as a business, and those competent and available
for such service; specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military
instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service
except in emergencies." or "Military service; warfare."
What this means is that to keep the country secure, a well regulated military
force is necessary. Members of said military force are allowed to keep
weapons. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't National Guardsman and
Reservists keep their weapons at home? Soldiers live in barracks with their
weapons, right?
If it is read to mean any citizen can keep arms (notice it doesn't say
firearms), then they can be called apon to go to war for the country and they
must attend training (well regulated) probably similar to what Reservists and
Guardsman attend.
Think about this: Has the NRA *ever* stated the entire second amendment? No,
of course not, because if they did, people would think "Hey, what is with this
Militia thing? Maybe they're wrong?"
>
> If the government deems is necessary to take away that amendement,
> what's to stop them from taking away the first amendment, or the
> fifth amendment? Nothing.
All amendments have limitations. Why should the second amendment be different?
> In the Columbine shooting, there were 18 gun-related laws broken.
> How does adding more laws fix that? The only laws that will, are going
> to restrict _MY_ rights. The shooting was senseless, and a tragedy,
> but that shouldn't stop me, a non-felon, non crime committing person,
> from obtaining or have the right to obtain a gun.
True, I don't believe more laws will help much. I'd rather see the time spent
on ecological matters. I don't really mind if someone has *a* gun (and one
for their spouse if s/he so wishes) for protection or food-hunting (deer are
not domesticated animals afterall), but what does anyone need with an automatic
or a semi-automatic weapon? A revolver should be all that is necessary for
protection, and noone should need anything other than a rifle for hunting.
(Truly, you don't even need a firearm for hunting. Bows and crossbows work
very well.)
> If I infringe on YOUR rights, then that's a problem, but if not, why
> do you want to infringe upon mine?
By your ownership of a gun, you could infringe on my rights of Life, Liberty,
and the Pursuit of Happiness. Will it happen? Probably not, but at the very
least, it is a lot easier for to you purposefully or accidentally infringe on
them.
Jeff
P.S. In 1990(1) the number of handgun deaths per 100,000 in the US was 21.5.
Canada was 2.1, and Japan(2) was 0.5. Why is this? Could it be because these
two countries have much stricter gun control laws than us? Nah, 'cause the NRA
says gun control doesn't work(3).
1 - I may have the year wrong, but I know I have the numbers right.
2 - Japan's has very violent media, so that can't be as much a cause as people
tend to think.
3 - Sarcasm, for those who can't recognize it.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Why does it matter? The first half of it is merely a justification for the second which is direction on what rights are granted to (actually affirmed for) whom. (...) No. (...) That's right, they didn't want to limit it to any particular kind (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) When the British marched on Concord April 19, 1775, the militia essentially consisted every able bodied citizen. I believe that the 2nd amendment is specifically referring to an informal militia NOT controlled by the wider government (though (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: New Web Page
|
| On Fri, 14 May 1999 16:30:06 GMT, Jeff Stembel uttered the following profundities... (...) And implies justification for the draft/conscription, subject to personal ownership of arms. (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) I would have to agree with Mike. The biggest problem with gun legislation, is that it's in the second amendment of the US Constitution. Spelled out specifically. If the government deems is necessary to take away that amendement, what's to stop (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
