In article <hugh_gibbons-8B287A.21010505072007@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
hugh_gibbons@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>
>In article <Lrgji.10865$vG2.10550@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, tgm <tgm3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>wrote:
>
>> Can't speak for the ACLU but my in my view it is an obsolete and
ineffective
>> Amendment bearing much in common with the 3rd Amendment.
>>
>> For the purpose of this discussion let's assume the right is a personal
right
>> and not limited to State run Militias.
>
>That's not the stated position of the ACLU. ACLU says it's a right
>pertaining to the States. They're concerned with individual rights,
>not States' rights. In fact, they consider States the other thing
>besides the Federal government that's most prone to infringe the rights
>they are dedicated to protecting.
That too, is my position but is unnecessary to show how the amendment is
obsolete.
>> It was still designed to allow people the right to defend their
liberty.
>> When muskets and long rifles were the mainstays of even the most
advanced
Armys of
>> the world, such an amendment made sense.
>>
>> Today where F-22s, M-1 Abrahms tanks and nuclear powered aircraft
carriers
>> control the land, the air and the sea, our little pea shooters are
pretty
>> much of a joke. Hell, we can't even readily make IEDs.
>>
>> Taking another tack, let's read hunting into the Amendment and claim
that the
>> right to bear arms was necessary so people could hunt and feed their
family.
>
>That's a lot of reading in. There's nothing in the Amendment to suggest
>any such thing, under any conceivable interpretation of the words.
The gun nuts will use any argument they can come up with. Needing weapons
for
hunting is one of their favorites. I know it's not in the constitution
but
being so easily refuted, I just couldn't resist.
>> Well in case you hadn't noticed, there are supermarkets in most every
>> community and the people who take guns to the supermarkets are not
hunting
>> for food.
>>
>> Just as there are no soldiers being quartered in our homes neither can
our
>> non-automatic weapons do anything to protect our freedoms.
>
>There were soldiers quartered in homes during and after the Civil War.
That was then, this is now. No need to quibble about when the Amendments
became
obsolete, the mere fact that they are is sufficient.
>> Why spend time and money on an obsolete Amendment when the Government
is
>> trying to infringe on many other of our Constitutional rights.
Tom
|
