[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:58:01 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:59:40 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:54:55 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
news:23s0u3tenhrh3hs2qrv2bjc1l4uur5kjkg@4ax. com...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:46:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"keithr" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war
of
Independance?

not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the
rage.
Come
in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the
bison

**Correct. The Springfield Rifle was invented by the North, during
the
Civil
War. It was arguably the first really mass produced item, built of
sophisticated mechanical equipment. So important was this item and
it's
manufacturing system, that the factory was booby trapped, so
complete
destruction would occur, if it had any chance of falling into the
hands
of
the South. The Springfield Rifle was credited as being, in no small
part,
for the fact that the North prevailed during that, very dark, time
in
US
history. It has also left it's mark on the US psyche. Many Americans
seem
to
think that gun owning is both sane and a right for individuals,
despite
the
very clear wording in the 2nd Amendment.

Yes, the very clear wording of an individual right.

**Wrong. The clear wording involves the term: "...well regulated
militia.."

Separate clause.

**The meaning is clear enough.

Yes, it is. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
be infringed."

**As part of a well regulated militia.

The operative word is "people" and it is the same "people" who have
the right to peaceably assemble and be secure in their persons, homes,
and effects.

You also confound militia, select militia, and organized militia. See
George Mason, below.

**No, I do not. The US FFs' ONLY mentioned " well regulated militia". No
other qualifiers were used.


The 'militia' clause may be informative, or even a 'reason', for which
there may be multiple interpretations, but the rights declaration is
absolute and is not dependent.

Take a simple example. The dean of a university issues a written
statement to the students of a class "the teacher being ill, class is
canceled."

Nothing about the 'ill' clause alters the command declaration of class
being canceled. If the teacher called in sick to watch a football
game, but is not ill at all, class is still canceled. If someone took
the message wrong, class is still canceled. If someone got the
teacher's names mixed up, the class is still canceled. If the teacher
experiences a miracle cure and is now well, class is still canceled.
If the dean flat out lied about his reason, or had 25 other reasons in
addition to the one mentioned, class is still canceled. No matter
what the status of the 'ill' clause may be, good, bad, current, or
obsolete, class is canceled.

Now, you can argue all day long that the dean didn't know what he was
doing, or there were substitute teachers available, or that the
students could teach themselves, or any other 'modern' ideas you dream
up, but the fact of the matter is "class is canceled" and the only
thing that can alter "class is canceled" would be a new declaration,
an 'amendment', so to speak..

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
be infringed."

The right ---- an explicit acknowledgement of it's pre-existence.
"Rights" are inherent to the people and not subject to the convenience
of the State. In fact, that rights are usually INconvenient to the
State is why explicit protections are stated.

**And yet, the state may alter those protections. Witness: The Patriot
Act.

False.

**Er, no. The Patriot Act subverts several parts of the US Constitution.


The search and seizure clause specifically says "unreasonable," not
"any" or "all."


The people ---- which universally means the people both individually
and collectively, as in the right of "the people" peaceably to
assemble or the right of "the people" to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects.

**With the exception of those subject to the Patriot Act, of course.

List one rather than babbling unsubstantiated accusations.

Even if you could, however, one infringement does not justify or
excuse another.

The US Foers refer to a "well regulated
militia" as part of the rights to gun ownership.

It is 'referred to' in a separate clause but the rights declaration is
explicit. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed."

**I'm afraid it is not that clear. There are two different versions of the
2nd Amendment. Given the times that the Amendment was written, it is clear
that the Founding Fathers referred to the necessity of an armed militia.

What's 'clear' is you haven't bothered to read a thing the people 'of
the times' wrote on the subject because, if you had, it would be
'clear' they considered arms an individual right of the people
irrespective of any organized militia.

**And yet, they chose to deliberately include the term: "well regulated
militia" in the same Amendment. Not separate, but within it. In fact, within
the same sentence.


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials."
-- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of
the Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of
conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which
Americans possess over the people of almost every other
nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with
arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson
Papers, 334

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in
full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention



American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment.

Nope, they don't 'ignore' it at all. They just know how to read
English, such as "the right of the people..."

**And yet they ignore the well regulated militia part.

Repeating a falsehood is still a falsehood.

**I just deal in facts.

Clearly false


They also understand the origin of the right, common law precedents,
the Federalist Papers writing on the matter, the form of government
established by the Constitution, and U.S. history.

**They should understand the consistent and constant subversion of the
law
by groups like the NRA, who act on behalf of the gun pushers.

You are not 'the law'

**I never said I was. I said that the NRA was subverting the law, on
behalf
of the gun pushers.

You imply yourself 'the law' by hysterically shrieking 'subversion'
simply because they have a different opinion than yours.

**Nope. The NRA is on record for opposing laws which would limit the
availability of guns to criminals. There is no sane, nor good reason for
doing so. UNLESS the NRA does actually happen to be working for the gun
manufacturers. THe NRA has no interest in the greater good. It acts solely
to lobby and promote the sale of more and more guns. Fostering paranoia
amongst Americans is it's most useful weapon to date.


The NRA has no power to 'subvert' the law. They can only speak and
lobby on behalf of their constituents and the 'power' they do have
comes from 1. their arguments having merit and 2. representing a large
constituency. All of which is well protected under the right of free
speech and of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the
government.

**Indeed. Therein lies the problem. The NRA effectively lobbies to ensure
that real gun control laws never see the light of day.



They
also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun
loons
each and every year.

Even if that were true it's irrelevant as the authors of the text had
no crystal balls with which to peer into 2008.

**Of course. Which is why the US Constitution can be altered to reflect
the
reality of life. I suspect the Founding Fathers might alter that
Amendment,
given the situation which exists today:

What you think they 'might do' is also irrelevant. The fact of the
matter is they wrote it and unless amended it's meaning stands as
intended.

**The meaning is under some considerable debate by many people.

Mostly by those who substitute their own 'desires' over the clear and
profuse writings by those who lived at the time, wrote, and ratified
the Constitution.

It would
seem that the time has come to re-write that Amendment to reflect what is
truly meant and, indeed, desired by the people.

Good luck. But I believe you'll discover your expectation of what's
"desired by the people" to be fantasy.

**A few more school massacres should do it. Sadly, it seems to reached
epidemic proportions in the US.



* The US is no longer occupied by a vicious foreign power.

And it wasn't in 1789 either.

**It was still under threat.

By who? Those who signed the Peace Treaty?

**Of course.


The US military was in it's infancy. The
British armed forces were substantial.

And on the other side of the Atlantic ocean.

The fact is you said "occupied by a vicious foreign power" and that
was factually false.

**Indeed. I should have said "PREVIOUSLY occupied by a vicious foreign
power". Happy?


* Savage natives no longer present a threat.

Does the 'natural origin' of the attacker make a difference to self
defense?

**It does, when there is a well funded, well armed police force, along
with
an even better funded and armed military force available. Neither existed
several hundred years ago.

The police are there to string yellow tape around the dead bodies and,
one hopes, find who done it.

**If you imagine that is all the police are charged to do, then you are
sadly mistaken.


That is not "defense."

**Indeed. And your description of the functions of a modern police force is
utterly simplistic.



Why, in your world, is someone 'free' to defend themselves
from "savage natives" but not from savage anyone else?

**People are free to defend themselves.

You just want to take away the best means of doing so.

**Do I? Prove it. Whilst you are at it, prove that a gun is the best means
of self defence.


I do, however, challenge the
delusion that a gun is a useful means of self defence in the 21st Century.

Give me a gun, you come at me with a knife, and we'll see.

**You'll be dead. Of that you can have no doubt. The element of surprise
will trump whatever weapon you happen to be holding.


Care to place bets?

**Since I am not a murderer, it is moot. I should, however, remind you of
how many armed police officers are killed, largely because their gun is in
it's holster. The element of surprise trumps whatever weapon is held,
regardless of the training of the individual. There's a good reason why
soldiers and poilce officers carry their guns in a very specific manner,
when entering a potentially dangerous situation. Civilians rarely have such
luxury.


In the US, for instance, 10,000 people are murdered via gunshot each year,
whilst around 200 are killed in so-called 'Defensive Gun Uses' (DGUs). It
would seem that in order to save around 200 lives each year, around 10,000
must die. I'll hand that equation over to the statisticians to mull over.

As Mark Twain, I think it was, said: there are lies, damn lies, and
then there are statistics.

**I cited the facts. Nothing more.


The 'trick' to those statistics is the underlying false premise that a
crime has not been thwarted, or a life saved, unless the defender
killed the perpetrator.

**I _only_ listed those killed. I did not list those injured. The figure
could be as high as 60,000 - 100,000. By remaining with deaths, the figures
cannot by fudged.


The fact of the matter is the vast majority of 'gun defense' occurs
from simply brandishing with the perpetrator exercising his own
instinct for self preservation in retreating.

**Prove it. Cite your evidence. Police reports, FBI data or reputable media
reports will be adequate proof.

Not to mention the
obvious case of wounding, but not killing, and firing with no hit (as,
perhaps, a warning shot), and those who simply avoid persons, or
premises, they know/suspect are armed.

**See above.



* Police and military forces are well equipped, organised and funded.

As provided for by the Constitution that was in play in 1789 as well.

**Except that they were not, by any standards, well equipped and funded
back
then.

The point is the Constitution provides for the military so there was
no need to add an 'amendment' to provide for that which was already
provided.

**And yet, with the addition of the words: "well regulated militia" that is
exactly what was done.



In fact, that the Constitution provides for calling forth the militia,
arming the militia, and the maintenance of Armies and Navies
exemplifies the folly of suggesting an 'amendment' was needed for
'arming' the (organized) militia that the Constitution already
provided for.

In
fact, the US military is the most potent on the planet. It is capable of
obliterating every armed force on the planet.

Good.

**Seems like overkill to me, but it is what it is.

Would be nice if the bad guys figure it's 'overkill' too and, so,
exercise good judgment and avoid being the object of the 'overkill'.

**What makes you think that the US is always a "good guy"? Care to discuss:
* Grenada.
* Nicaragua.
* Iraq.
* Etc.



* Supermarkets supply the vast quantity of animal protein.

Your choice.

**Not only mine. It is the overwhelming choice of the vast majority of
Americans.

Everyone has choice. I thought I made that clear in the "freedom"
comment.

**You did. And _I_ am merely making the comment that had the US FFs known
what kind of a society the US would become, they may well have made some
adjustments to their words. In fact, they did forsee such things, by
ensuring that there was a mechanism to alter the US Constitution.



Freedom means someone else has their choice.

**Indeed. The inhabitants of all the other Western, developed nations have
the freedom to walk the streets, secure in the knowledge that they are
more
than 10 times less likely to be shot to death than an American is. That is
a
nice freedom to have.

"Shot?" Are you trying to make a case that being stabbed or beaten to
death is a good thing?

**Nope. I'm trying to make the case that Americans are more than 10 times
more likely to be shot to death than the citizens of any other Western,
developed nation.


People do killing, not inanimate objects.

**Strawman. Sensible gun control laws have been shown to reduce the
likelihood of several gun related crimes (here in Australia). Guns (per se)
are not the problem. The lack of sensible controls over those guns, in the
US, is the problem.



* Guns have reload times measured in milliseconds, rather than tens of
seconds.

Good.

* Accuracy of modern, high power weapons is significantly superior to
those
available several hundred years ago.

Good.

* Concealable weapons are cheap, plentiful and readily available.

They fought a war with them in 1776 and, as for 'readily available',
virtually everyone had them.

**They weren't by any stretch as concealable as modern handguns are. Nor
as
reliable, fast to reload, nor as accurate and, possibly more importantly,
no
where near as deadly.

The framers of the Constitution didn't believe in the right to bear
arms on the theory they weren't deadly.

**Indeed. They weren't able to predict the future, either. Which is why they
allowed for alterations to the Constitution.



Perhaps it is time to re-visit the 2nd Amendment, given the realities of
life in the 21st Century. The US Founding Fathers thoughtfully provided
a
method for this to be accomplished.

That would be the proper approach rather than inventing a pile of B.S.
about what the existing text means.

**The existing text seems clear enough to most people.

And "most people" recognize it means an individual right, just as the
framers intended and said.

**As part of a well regulated militia.


They refer to a "well
regulated militia". They do not refer to some good ole boys wandering
around in 4X4s shooting up the landscape.

They didn't need to refer to 'good ole boys'. In fact, the Federalists
argued they didn't need to mention anything at all, militia, press,
speech, or otherwise, because the Federal government has NO powers not
granted and there are NO powers granted to ban or confiscate firearms,
or to prohibit speech, or to close down newspapers.

In fact, they argued it was damn dangerous to include the Bill of
Rights because, they predicted, some future idiots might get the
stupid notion that anything not mentioned wasn't a right.

They lost that debate when the others argued NO one could EVER be THAT
dumb... but we'll add the 9'th and 10'th 'just in case'.

It seems the Federalists were correct, 9'th and 10'th notwithstanding.

**Oh, and that pesky Patriot Act.

Trevor Wilson