I blame the Welsh.

------------------
Not even a god can deny that I have squared the circle of a static Earth and cubed the Earth sphere by rotating it once to a dynamic Time or Life Cube.
--
Gene Ray
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet" Or don't. You know, whatever.

quote:

---

"The original intent of the framers of the Second Amendment was not only for the people to have the right to be armed, but to be armed at a level equal to the government. The History of the Second Amendment, 28 Valparaiso University Law Review, 1007, 1009 (1994).

---

So the Second Ammendment should allow the common Joe-Schmoe to own tanks and F-15s? Hell, why not a nuclear bomb?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

quote:

---

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

---

Article 1 section 8

Even assuming that 'well regulated' also means something akin to 'well ordered', the above of the Constitution gives Congress authority for arming the militia and by extension regulation of arms carried by said militia.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

*KarrdeSpeak*

YOU prove it.

*/KarrdeSpeak*

To which I would reply that your side is the one making the assertation, Jeff. You're asserting that the Constitution says something. I'm denying that. It's YOUR job to prove your position, not mine to disprove it.

More, you both agree that regulation is essential when it comes to Criminals and ex-Criminals, even though the Constitution says NOTHING about restricting any of the rights of those who have served their time for a crime committed. Whether you realize or wish to admit it or not, you do agree.

Proof enough. =)

(Speaking of which, while it's certainly nice to see that Omega has learned to spell "Britain" correctly, it'd be nice if he could learn to do the same with my name.)

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

Let's be clear about this. The Constitution says that Congress arms and diciplines the militia. Moreover, the Constitution also says Congress has the authority:

quote:

---

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

---

Article 1 section 8.

The militia is a military force on land. Rules and regulation being what they are, combined with the other authority given Congress over the militia, are the writing on the wall for your impoverished point of view.

Your idea is and has been to make statements with nothing to back them up. According to the old admonition, show don't tell. Well you can't show.

I've shown what the Constitution says about Congress and the militia. Further I've shown what the Constitution says about regulation of land forces of which any militia is a part. Cleary, putting these together, Congress has the Constitutional authority to regulate the weapons carried by any militia.

Morover, this calls into question a sore on Fo2's 'well regulated' body argument of 'well ordered' singular meaning:

quote:

---

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is
so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

---

Alexander Hamilton from Federalist No. 29 indicates that, he for one, felt well regulated intended regulation of the militia and not simple training.

Let's be clear about this. The Constitution says that Congress arms and diciplines the militia. Moreover, the Constitution also says Congress has the authority to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

Yes, but the militia only becomes an actual part of the military at such time as they are called into service, ala a draft or invasion. Thus, the regulation portion does not apply to private citizens. Further, even if it did, it would ONLY apply to able-bodied men between the ages stated earlier. And yet further, even if the above qualifications did not exist, the second ammendment overrides the original text. It IS an ammendment, after all.

So, the highest law on the subject would be the most recent related ammendment to the Constitution, that being that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Game over. You loose.

quote:

---

Game over. You loose

---

::runs to bathroom:: Phew! Got there in time.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

Anyway, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Now, they haven't been doing a smack-dab job of it in recent years (look at what they did for "Dubya" as an example), but they've been hitting things pretty clearly on the gun issue. Proof enough.

Second, you still haven't responded to this point:

The Constitution says nothing about restricting the rights of ex-Criminals. Yet you want guns kept away from them. How do you support that without also supporting government regulation of guns? Contradictory.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

Why do we need guns in the first place? Perhaps if this aspect, (what seems to be the basis of the entire argument), was examined, then we could come to some reasonable conclusion.

Depending upon how the constitution is interpreted, it is our inalienable right to bear firearms. Why? What do we need them for and why should we have the right to maintain them? Do we really need them for protection and recreational purposes? Are they a basic and fundamental part of our lives, without which we would suffer intolerably? Would it be so horrible if we restricted firearms completely from the American public? Answer these questions please, using logical, rational statements supported by evidence without making exceptions to the points you are making, and perhaps we will get somewhere useful.