Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Blogs               
Boat Search (new)





Go Back   SailNet Community > General Interest Forums > Off Topic
User Name
Password
 Not a Member? 


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 Like this article?  Digg It!  or   Bookmark it!
  #101 (permalink)  
Old 07-02-2008
erps's Avatar
erps erps is online now
Puddin' head
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: La Conner, Washington
Posts: 1,318
Rep Power: 3
erps will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Liberal journalist Michael Kinsley once famously quoted a colleague as saying, "If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory."
I remember reading about some little town on the on the right side of the country that passed a town law requiring gun ownership. It wasn't enforced, but it made their point.

Politics Fuels Mandatory Gun Ownership Laws -- 09/11/2001
__________________
Ray
S.V. Nikko
1983 Fraser 41
La Conner, WA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5EWSEP-JA8

"Everybody has to be somewhere, sometime."

Last edited by erps : 07-02-2008 at 10:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #102 (permalink)  
Old 07-02-2008
SEMIJim's Avatar
SEMIJim SEMIJim is offline
Nautical Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan, U.S.A.
Posts: 1,657
Rep Power: 2
SEMIJim will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailboy21 View Post
Something most people do not realize.. is that the "police" have no binding legal responsibility to provide service... none what-so-ever.
What you're asserting is the result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, so it can only be said to apply in the U.S. But on a more practical level: No country, region, state, county, province, canton, city, township, borough, village, etc. can possibly afford to provide a law-enforcement blanket heavy enough to offer any kind of guarantee of individual protection. (Personally, I don't think I'd want to live in a place that could.) The best a government can reasonably do is a kind of general crime prevention and to bring criminals to justice after-the-fact. (N.B.: This is where NYC improved and why overall crime, incl. violent crime, markedly decreased.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailboy21 View Post
All they really amount to is a private security service for your municipality. ... Do you want to trust your life to a glorified rent-a-cop?
I'm not even a cop and even I find that a somewhat offensive characterization.

Jim
__________________
"If fifty million people say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
1976 Pearson P30 #914 - s/v Abracadabra
Reply With Quote
  #103 (permalink)  
Old 07-02-2008
ebs001's Avatar
ebs001 ebs001 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 931
Rep Power: 3
ebs001 is on a distinguished road
SA, good article. I am make fun of gated communities too. As I said before we call them prisons. I find it interesting that the descenting judges expressed the opinion that the second amendment applied to "militia" and not personal protection. While it wasn't the opinion of the majority I think it at least makes my opinion validity. I think the SC majority got it wrong; I think the SC minority thinks so too. Remember I have said all along I do not believe in a wholesale ban on guns only where the line in the sand should be drawn and the SC has drawn a line. The 2nd doesn't say anything about personal protection and to me that is a bastardization of the 2nd. However for now it's the law of the land and minor opinions (mine or the judges) mean nothing in law.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Ad
  #104 (permalink)  
Old 07-02-2008
erps's Avatar
erps erps is online now
Puddin' head
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: La Conner, Washington
Posts: 1,318
Rep Power: 3
erps will become famous soon enough
Quote:
The 2nd doesn't say anything about personal protection and to me that is a bastardization of the 2nd. However for now it's the law of the land and minor opinions (mine or the judges) mean nothing in law.
Go the the PDF of the decision and use the "find" function to look for the word combination "self defense". It's all about self defense. Furthermore, the majority opinion is that the right was pre-existing to the constitution and the constitution only sayes that pre-existing right shall not be infringed. English common law recognized "the natural right of resistance and self preservation". Again, it's all about self defense. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about hunting or target practicing either, but it doesn't need to because the right to possess firearms shall not be infringed.

I find it ironic that the liberal justices want to stop government intrusion into America's bedrooms saying there is a right to privacy unless you wanted to possess a firearm to protect yourself in one of the homicide capitols of the country.
__________________
Ray
S.V. Nikko
1983 Fraser 41
La Conner, WA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5EWSEP-JA8

"Everybody has to be somewhere, sometime."
Reply With Quote
  #105 (permalink)  
Old 07-03-2008
sailaway21 sailaway21 is offline
Owner, Green Bay Packers
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SW Michigan
Posts: 8,710
Rep Power: 6
sailaway21 is a jewel in the roughsailaway21 is a jewel in the roughsailaway21 is a jewel in the roughsailaway21 is a jewel in the rough
Damn good post, Ray. My eyes kind of popped out also when I read our friend's statement. And one doesn't have to be a legql beagle to read and understand the decision; the language is fairly normal. (g)

Regarding bedrooms, and dwellings in general, I've always thought it much less likely that anyone would be poking their noses in either if there was a concern that they might get it shot off. But then, I'm probably just a reactionary.
__________________
The brain is merely a knot that keeps the spinal cord from unraveling.
Reply With Quote
  #106 (permalink)  
Old 07-04-2008
jerryrlitton's Avatar
jerryrlitton jerryrlitton is offline
99 FLSTF
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SW Republic of TEXAS
Posts: 583
Rep Power: 7
jerryrlitton will become famous soon enough
Send a message via ICQ to jerryrlitton Send a message via MSN to jerryrlitton Send a message via Yahoo to jerryrlitton Send a message via Skype™ to jerryrlitton
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucklesR View Post
CD,
4-10's in the hand of homeowners are far scarier than a 22 cal pop gun. Hell most 22's can't hit what they are aimed at from 5 feet away.
The lowly 22 is quite capable of outstanding accuracy. I believe that in the Olympics they have an event where a pistol is fired one-handed unsupported from quite a bit farther then 5 feet. Can y'all spell T R A I N I N G? I knew you could. There is no substitute. One advantage a 22 has over anything else is the cost of ammunition. For the price of a skinny latte frapacino you can get a box of 50 once a week and practice. I would rather a hit with any 22 (If I was shooting) then a close miss with your 410 or anything else.
Jerry
__________________


"The road to truth is long and paved the entire way with annoying bastards."

Barrow cam

Last edited by jerryrlitton : 07-04-2008 at 01:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #107 (permalink)  
Old 07-04-2008
jerryrlitton's Avatar
jerryrlitton jerryrlitton is offline
99 FLSTF
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SW Republic of TEXAS
Posts: 583
Rep Power: 7
jerryrlitton will become famous soon enough
Send a message via ICQ to jerryrlitton Send a message via MSN to jerryrlitton Send a message via Yahoo to jerryrlitton Send a message via Skype™ to jerryrlitton
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D., author of "On Killing."

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:
"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle,
productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This
is true.
Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the
aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent
crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record
rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which
means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation:
We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is
still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people
who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under
extreme provocation. They are sheep. I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep.
To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey
but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators. "Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial. "Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive
citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy
for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a
wolf.
But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your
fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep,
wolves and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed policeofficer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more
likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but
the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they
chose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the
wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that
there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them
where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our
airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog. The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door. Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel?
Remember how many times you heard the word hero? Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle.
The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the
sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep
pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said,"Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into
warrior hood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a
difference.
There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but
he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to
survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the
population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically
primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can
choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was
honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall,
was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground. There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. -- Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of
police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep,
real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are
wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you.
If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But
if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must
make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well
concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of
religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in
your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an
individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre
you and your loved ones.

Continued on part two...
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the
break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The
other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I
asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was
carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would
probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and
would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their
cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic
accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often
their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog
quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically
destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is
counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and
horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when
you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't
train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy.
Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically
survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and
horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11
book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms
with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an
insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get
by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is
all the more unsettling."
Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in
small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.
If you are a warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you
step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending
that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a
lifetime.
Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon,
and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to
yourself... "Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy.
It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, acontinuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the
other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other.
Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in
America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing
is worth war is worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is
a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and
kept so by the exertions of men better than himself. -- John Stuart Mill
__________________


"The road to truth is long and paved the entire way with annoying bastards."

Barrow cam
Reply With Quote
  #108 (permalink)  
Old 07-04-2008
jerryrlitton's Avatar
jerryrlitton jerryrlitton is offline
99 FLSTF
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SW Republic of TEXAS
Posts: 583
Rep Power: 7
jerryrlitton will become famous soon enough
Send a message via ICQ to jerryrlitton Send a message via MSN to jerryrlitton Send a message via Yahoo to jerryrlitton Send a message via Skype™ to jerryrlitton
Quote:
Originally Posted by erps View Post
I remember reading about some little town on the on the right side of the country that passed a town law requiring gun ownership. It wasn't enforced, but it made their point.

Politics Fuels Mandatory Gun Ownership Laws -- 09/11/2001
Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia --- Crime Rate Plummets

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia --- Crime Rate Plummets
__________________


"The road to truth is long and paved the entire way with annoying bastards."

Barrow cam
Reply With Quote
  #109 (permalink)  
Old 07-04-2008
SEMIJim's Avatar
SEMIJim SEMIJim is offline
Nautical Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan, U.S.A.
Posts: 1,657
Rep Power: 2
SEMIJim will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebs001 View Post
I find it interesting that the descenting judges expressed the opinion that the second amendment applied to "militia" and not personal protection. While it wasn't the opinion of the majority I think it at least makes my opinion validity. I think the SC majority got it wrong; I think the SC minority thinks so too.
Of course you think your own opinion valid. That doesn't make it so.

Not that I expect it'll make any difference to you, because ISTM your mind is made up and no amount of fact or informed opinion is going to change it, but for those who do have an open mind:

Quote:
THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT

by J. Neil Schulman


If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up
Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert
warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no
question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top
expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial
Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and
formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who
himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on
English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told
me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of
journalism at the University of Southern California and the
author of \American Usage and Style: The Consensus\.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of
Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for
over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-
year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has
been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of
journalism for \Editor and Publisher\, a weekly magazine focusing
on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary,
and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an
expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, \American Usage and
Style: The Consensus\, has been in continuous print from Van
Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the
Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which
I introduced myself but did \not\ give him any indication of why
I was interested, I sent the following letter:

***
"July 26, 1991

"Dear Professor Copperud:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as
an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the
intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, '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 debate over this amendment has been whether the first
part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a
subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause
containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take
into consideration issues of political impact or public policy,
but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its
meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis
will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences
of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be
a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind
with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath
to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the
Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major
responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because,
as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the
actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your
analysis not be affected by the political importance of its
results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.


"Sincerely,

"J. Neil Schulman"

***

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we
discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we
never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second
Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor
Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted
my questions for the sake of clarity):

***

[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the
interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute
a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an
adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main
clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The
right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for
maintaining a militia.

In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the
right to keep and bear arms \solely\ to "a well-regulated
militia"?;]

[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to
keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the
right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a
positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms" \granted\ by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the
Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep
and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be
infringed"?;]

[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment;
its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the
right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a
militia.

[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear
arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is,
in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that
condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and
void?;]

[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied.
The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to
depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or
implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and
to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the
security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is
deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.


[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right
to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people
to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by
the meaning of the entire sentence?;]

[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be
unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here
specifically for the sake of the militia.

[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-
regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized,"
"well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a
superior authority"?]

[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of
a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the
writers for civilian control over the military.

[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into
account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that
sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into
account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors,
unless those issues can be clearly separated.]

[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no
change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the
meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be
put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security
of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be abridged."

I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of
the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books,
shall not be infringed."

My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would
be,

(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence,
and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second
Amendment's sentence?; and

(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the
right of the people to keep and read Books" \only\ to "a well-
educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a
high-school diploma?]

[Copperud:] (1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely
parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates
or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

***

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he
placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I
made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be
used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on
American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the
United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep
and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the
Constitution from abridging that right.


As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional
government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because
the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from
capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to
maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges,
and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the
Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or
prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American
citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning
arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic
requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all
of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the
people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the ACLU, staunch defender of the rest of the Bill
of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep
and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one
else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away
our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they
do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second
Amendment doesn't mean what it says but means whatever they
say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as
the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and
pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our
fortunes, and our sacred honor?



Copyright (c) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment
Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire
article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New
Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited.
All others rights reserved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebs001 View Post
Remember I have said all along I do not believe in a wholesale ban on guns only where the line in the sand should be drawn
However, you've provided no justification whatsoever for your opinion. It's just the way you think things ought to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebs001 View Post
and the SC has drawn a line. The 2nd doesn't say anything about personal protection
That's because it doesn't have to--it's simply affirming a right that was assumed to exist, independent of any reason. None of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights include a raison d'être. Why should the 2nd be any different?

The right to self defense is a common law right. Even dissenting Justice Stevens admits it, right at the beginning of his dissent, where he writes:
Quote:
Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.
[emphasis added]

Perhaps that was because the Framers felt, as with the rest of the BoR, the reasons were self-evident? If not: There was certainly no dearth of discussion, historical and contemporary, to explain the reasoning. (I have a whole bag full of contemporary quotes, if you're interested.)

I found the remainder of Justice Stevens' arguments unconvincing. It seemed to me he frequently contradicted himself?

Justice Breyer, in his dissent, writes
Quote:
Thus I here assume that one objective ... of those who wrote the Second Amendment was to help assure citizens that they would have arms available for purposes of self-defense.
and
Quote:
Although I adopt for present purposes the majority's position that the Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense...
Justice Breyer's dissent from the majority doesn't appear to disagree with the thrust of its position, so much as its scope.

Unfortunately, neither Justices Souter nor Ginsburg saw fit to clarify their dissents.

It seems evident to me you're not even familiar with that with which you're agreeing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebs001 View Post
and to me that is a bastardization of the 2nd.
On what