Re: __ RD The Dopeman demonstrates - Jus

Msg # 1994 of 2000 on RelayNet Legal issues chat
To: ALL, From: "_ PROF. JONEZ _" Time: Wednesday, 8-15-7, 4:46
[ List Messages | List Conferences | Previous Message | Next Message ]
--- UseNet To RIME Gateway @ 8/15/07 4:46:11 PM ---

Mike Painter wrote:
> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>> Bo Raxo wrote:
>>> "RD (The Sandman)"  wrote in
>>> message
>>>> "Bo Raxo"  wrote in
>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
>>>>>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mike Painter"  wrote in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So Gov't can infringe on the right to bear arms, eh?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The second ammendment talks about a well regulated militia in
>>>>>>>> conjunction with rights to bear arms. It's all in one sentence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While true, it does not make one reliant on the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>>>>>> infringed; a well
>>>>>> armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a
>>>>>> free country; but
>>>>>> no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be
>>>>>> compelled to render
>>>>>> military service in person."
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's quote it accurately.
>>>>
>>>> As long as you are correcting. :^)  You need to learn exactly what
>>>> it is he is quoting.  Note the 16 words below:
>>>>
>>>> "It does when you stop ignoring the *original context of
>>>> the first draft* of the 2nd Amendment:"  [emphasis mine]
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, my mistake, thanks for the correction of my incorrect
>>> correction. In skimming, I saw "original context" and I think my brain
>>> substituted framer's intent, a line of argument I've always found
>>> specious at best.  I mean, the intent was to allow somebody to own a
>>> musket.
>>
>>
>> Nope, nothing about ownership in any of the many drafts and debates
>> that make up the body of history leading to the 2nd Amendment.
>>
>> What IS consistent throughout the entire historical record that led
>> to the 2nd amendment is the fact that the Framers were irrefutably
>> debating "THE MILITIA" and the structure of THE MILITIA, and the
>> control and authority over THE MILITIA ...
>>
>> No where in any of the 1000s of pages of discussion and debate is
>> there any mention
>> of an individual right for some Jed Clampet to own a flintlock so he
>> can go possum huntin'.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> They are reproduced from just before his quote that you
>>>> 'corrected'. And note the first four words:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
>>>>>
>>>>> "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. "
>>
>>
>> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>> infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best
>> security of a free
>> country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall
>> be compelled to render military service in person."
>
> It's naturally harder to find what the original founders intended and
> to find out that the people who did want free ownership guarenteed
> were the loosers in the debate.
> You might even have to read books to find it.

> However the cowboy movies of yore tell the story ...

> A friend I used to argue ...

Scintillating ...

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100
 * Origin: RelayNet  MoonDog BBS Brooklyn, NY (900:100/50)
300/5647
 

[ List Messages | List Conferences | Previous Message | Next Message ]
Search this conference for:

2018 The Trashcan BBS - http://bbs.thenet.gen.nz. All rights reserved.