Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
Trevor Wilson Trevor Wilson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 776
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM


wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:18:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:47:41 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


wrote in message
news On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:50:26 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


wrote in message
news:97b5335g4r6u0vvp6ddmkegnpsbc54ur52@4ax. com...
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:22:58 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

snip

**I supply the KNOWN DGUs.

Really?

**Yeah, really.

Or do you mean you supply the DGU's that result in a death?

**Nope.

Then why are they on the FBI list?

**Those are the DGUs we know about.




If you can supply the KNOWN DGUs whcih did not result in death, for
the years listed, then we will have more data. 'Till then, that is all
we
have.

No, that is all you want to recognize.

**Read my lips:

If you provide verifiable DGUs where death did not result, for the years
listed, we can include them. Until then, that is the only data
available.


No, information has been posted before about DGU's that you accepted -
then later denied.


**Nope. That is not true. However, humour me: Post it again. Perhaps my
news
service did not pick up your post. I can find no evidence of anyone
posting
DGUs, FOR THE YEARS I LISTED, other than the ones from the FBI.




You have admitted before that DGU's occur that are not on ***YOUR***
'list'.

**Indeed. However, recent demands by yourself and others have forced me
to
revise my figures to reflect more accuracy. I have done so.

No, the only acuracy is that you have is that death resulted in those
DGU's.


**Fine. Supply your supplemental data for the years I listed.


Now, if you wish
to ensure that my figures remain accurate, then YOU must supply accurate
data also. After all, if you supply poor data, then you will just accuse
me
of promulgating inaccurate data. Neither of us wants that, do we?

You have previously admitted that DGU's occur that do not result in
death.


**Indeed.


We also know that some DGU's are not reported to centralized databases
such as the FBI.


**Possibly. I don't know if that is the case or not.


LOL What happened to 'honest' debate trevorboy?


**I'll answer that in the only way possible:

Do you know, for absolute certain, that all DGUs (which are reported to
local authorities) are not also reported to the FBI? I sure as Hell don't
know. I don't have any idea how much (or how little) information the FBI
gathers each year. Do you have some inside information to impart?




There are many, many credible studies that give varying figures - you
reject those because you maintain they are not 'hard data'.


**Of course. Many of those sources contain figures which are from very
poorly executed surveys. Hard data is all we can rely upon to ascertain
the
truth.


"Many" - then by your admission not all fit your category.


**Indeed. All the surveys I've examined are faulty in some way.


And no, hard data is not all that you canb rely on. You don't.


**Demands have recently been placed on me, by yourself and others, that I
ONLY deal in hard data. I am acquiescing to your demands. Naturally, my
demands are the same as yours. Hard data is it. NOTHING else will be
accepted.




hard data
for an exact number canot be had - just as it can't for rape (some
rapes are uinreported), robbery (some robberies are not reported),
etc.


**Indeed. SOME rapes and SOME robberies are not reported. They are not
included in any figures. Just as any DGUs which are not reported will not
be
included in any figures.


So what we are left wtih is your bogus claim that there are only about
200 DGU's a year, which is so patently foolish that i am almost
surprised you believe it (along with some other stupid things you have
professed to believe).


**OK, fine. Present your supplemental data.



http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/
. Warning shot turns deadly (AZ)
. Man shot while trying to break into house, police say (LA)
. Resident fires at 2 suspected of break-in (PA)
. Store clerk's gunshot fatal to teen boy (MI)
. Homeowner: Illegal entry was more than that (MI)
. Drive-Through Shooting Leaves Would Be Robber Dead (CA)
. Mobile home intruder met by gunfire (AK)
. Robbery victim shoots attacker (South Africa)
. Gun shop owner apprehends suspect during armed robbery (TX)
. Prowler prompts man to fire gun (IN)
. Fatal double shooting in Jacksonville ruled justifiable homicide
(FL)
. Jeweler gets best of robbers in gun fight (LA)
. Gunman Shot By Store Clerks During Acampo Robbery (CA)
. Robbery suspect killed at diner (TN)
. Man kills burglar, police say (LA)
. Police: Armed burglar killed by homeowner (TX)
. Early Morning [Self-Defense] Shooting (FL)
. Homeowner, 79, Not Charged For Shooting Intruders (KY)
. Police say man was killed in self-defense (WI)
. Intruder Shot To Death After Breaking Into Home (FL)
. East Side Shooting Involved Earlier Assault, Vandalism (TX)
. Man killed in neighborhood shootout (LA)
. 79-Year-Old Shoots Two Intruders, Police Say (KY)
. Merchant ends holdup, shoots robber (IN)
. Suspect shot in head by liquor store owner (CO)
. No charges for wife who shot and killed her husband (NY)
. District attorney's office rules shooting was self-defense (NC)
. Two people kidnap Coppell woman (TX)
. Woman won't face charges in husband's death (SC)
. Police: Burlington store owner shoots would-be burglar (NC)
. Convenience store owner fatally shoots would-be armed robber (TX)
. Police: Store Clerk Shoots Back At Robbers (NC)
. Robber beaten with brolly, shot (South Africa)
. Alleged Burglar Shot in East Montgomery (AL)
. Teen Intruder Shot By Neighbor, Police Say (MS)
. Man killed at Brooklyn Center apartment (MN)
. Police arrest Bossier City shooting victim (LA)
. Mother Fights Back Against Intruder (TX)
. 911 calls reveal chaos in defensive shooting (CO)
. Grand jury no-bills woman in shooting (TX)
. 2 try to rob jewelry store; 1 suspect shot, still at large (AZ)
. Jewelry Store Owner Grabs Gun, Chases Robber (MI)
. Gun Battle Breaks Out Between Family, Intruders (TX)
. Police: Homeowner shoots, kills intruder (TN)
. BSP security guard outduels 3 robbers (Philippines)
. One Man Dead, Another Arrested After Attempted Robbery (NC)
. Florence robbers leave gun behind (FL)
. No indictment in fatal [self-defense] shooting (KY)
. Alleged Burglar Fired On (WA)


**And again, I STILL don't know which years many of the events took place,
as many of the links are broken. Perhaps you can break them down, year by
year for me, as I can't see that data? We can then add your figures to the
FBI ones and come up with a realistic figure for DGUs in the US, for the
five years mentioned previously.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

YO! Take your gun discussions back to your own newsgroup and
stop cross-posting to irrelevant groups.


  #3   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
Larry Hewitt Larry Hewitt is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:18:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:47:41 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


wrote in message
news On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:50:26 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


wrote in message
news:97b5335g4r6u0vvp6ddmkegnpsbc54ur52@4ax .com...
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:22:58 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

snip

**I supply the KNOWN DGUs.

Really?

**Yeah, really.

Or do you mean you supply the DGU's that result in a death?

**Nope.

Then why are they on the FBI list?

**Those are the DGUs we know about.




If you can supply the KNOWN DGUs whcih did not result in death, for
the years listed, then we will have more data. 'Till then, that is
all
we
have.

No, that is all you want to recognize.

**Read my lips:

If you provide verifiable DGUs where death did not result, for the
years
listed, we can include them. Until then, that is the only data
available.


No, information has been posted before about DGU's that you accepted -
then later denied.

**Nope. That is not true. However, humour me: Post it again. Perhaps my
news
service did not pick up your post. I can find no evidence of anyone
posting
DGUs, FOR THE YEARS I LISTED, other than the ones from the FBI.




You have admitted before that DGU's occur that are not on ***YOUR***
'list'.

**Indeed. However, recent demands by yourself and others have forced me
to
revise my figures to reflect more accuracy. I have done so.

No, the only acuracy is that you have is that death resulted in those
DGU's.

**Fine. Supply your supplemental data for the years I listed.


Now, if you wish
to ensure that my figures remain accurate, then YOU must supply
accurate
data also. After all, if you supply poor data, then you will just
accuse
me
of promulgating inaccurate data. Neither of us wants that, do we?

You have previously admitted that DGU's occur that do not result in
death.

**Indeed.


We also know that some DGU's are not reported to centralized databases
such as the FBI.

**Possibly. I don't know if that is the case or not.


LOL What happened to 'honest' debate trevorboy?


**I'll answer that in the only way possible:

Do you know, for absolute certain, that all DGUs (which are reported to
local authorities) are not also reported to the FBI? I sure as Hell don't
know. I don't have any idea how much (or how little) information the FBI
gathers each year. Do you have some inside information to impart?


I know for a fact that all of the DGU's claimed by gun nuts ARE NOT
reported to the FBI.

Many of the "researchers" into DGUs, like Kleck, get their data from
telephone surveys. I have seen reports from these "surveys" of anywhere from
2.5 million to 5 million DGUs per annum. %he high number is higher than the
violent crime rate, indicating that more than half of the violent crimes in
this country go unreported --- not reasonable.

DOJ numbers are in the tens of thousands, and the last report I saw from
them estimates the number at fewer than 100,000, all told (projection from
reports).

But is must be remembered that a DGU is in the eye of the gun loon. That
is, NO THIRD PARTY verification of the incident is available for the vast
majority of these incidents. We have no idea whether or not the other party
wa armed (he ran away), had bad intentions (he ran away), or was even aware
that the DGUser even existed. Yhe fact that very, vrey few gun battless
ensue tends toindicate that the other party was not armed. Kleck's reported
survey showed more than half of the incidents the "DGUser" was in fact the
aggressor, reacting to a percieved threat before any overt action was needed
(mostly brandishing).

Larry



There are many, many credible studies that give varying figures - you
reject those because you maintain they are not 'hard data'.

**Of course. Many of those sources contain figures which are from very
poorly executed surveys. Hard data is all we can rely upon to ascertain
the
truth.


"Many" - then by your admission not all fit your category.


**Indeed. All the surveys I've examined are faulty in some way.


And no, hard data is not all that you canb rely on. You don't.


**Demands have recently been placed on me, by yourself and others, that I
ONLY deal in hard data. I am acquiescing to your demands. Naturally, my
demands are the same as yours. Hard data is it. NOTHING else will be
accepted.




hard data
for an exact number canot be had - just as it can't for rape (some
rapes are uinreported), robbery (some robberies are not reported),
etc.

**Indeed. SOME rapes and SOME robberies are not reported. They are not
included in any figures. Just as any DGUs which are not reported will not
be
included in any figures.


So what we are left wtih is your bogus claim that there are only about
200 DGU's a year, which is so patently foolish that i am almost
surprised you believe it (along with some other stupid things you have
professed to believe).

**OK, fine. Present your supplemental data.



http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/
. Warning shot turns deadly (AZ)
. Man shot while trying to break into house, police say (LA)
. Resident fires at 2 suspected of break-in (PA)
. Store clerk's gunshot fatal to teen boy (MI)
. Homeowner: Illegal entry was more than that (MI)
. Drive-Through Shooting Leaves Would Be Robber Dead (CA)
. Mobile home intruder met by gunfire (AK)
. Robbery victim shoots attacker (South Africa)
. Gun shop owner apprehends suspect during armed robbery (TX)
. Prowler prompts man to fire gun (IN)
. Fatal double shooting in Jacksonville ruled justifiable homicide
(FL)
. Jeweler gets best of robbers in gun fight (LA)
. Gunman Shot By Store Clerks During Acampo Robbery (CA)
. Robbery suspect killed at diner (TN)
. Man kills burglar, police say (LA)
. Police: Armed burglar killed by homeowner (TX)
. Early Morning [Self-Defense] Shooting (FL)
. Homeowner, 79, Not Charged For Shooting Intruders (KY)
. Police say man was killed in self-defense (WI)
. Intruder Shot To Death After Breaking Into Home (FL)
. East Side Shooting Involved Earlier Assault, Vandalism (TX)
. Man killed in neighborhood shootout (LA)
. 79-Year-Old Shoots Two Intruders, Police Say (KY)
. Merchant ends holdup, shoots robber (IN)
. Suspect shot in head by liquor store owner (CO)
. No charges for wife who shot and killed her husband (NY)
. District attorney's office rules shooting was self-defense (NC)
. Two people kidnap Coppell woman (TX)
. Woman won't face charges in husband's death (SC)
. Police: Burlington store owner shoots would-be burglar (NC)
. Convenience store owner fatally shoots would-be armed robber (TX)
. Police: Store Clerk Shoots Back At Robbers (NC)
. Robber beaten with brolly, shot (South Africa)
. Alleged Burglar Shot in East Montgomery (AL)
. Teen Intruder Shot By Neighbor, Police Say (MS)
. Man killed at Brooklyn Center apartment (MN)
. Police arrest Bossier City shooting victim (LA)
. Mother Fights Back Against Intruder (TX)
. 911 calls reveal chaos in defensive shooting (CO)
. Grand jury no-bills woman in shooting (TX)
. 2 try to rob jewelry store; 1 suspect shot, still at large (AZ)
. Jewelry Store Owner Grabs Gun, Chases Robber (MI)
. Gun Battle Breaks Out Between Family, Intruders (TX)
. Police: Homeowner shoots, kills intruder (TN)
. BSP security guard outduels 3 robbers (Philippines)
. One Man Dead, Another Arrested After Attempted Robbery (NC)
. Florence robbers leave gun behind (FL)
. No indictment in fatal [self-defense] shooting (KY)
. Alleged Burglar Fired On (WA)


**And again, I STILL don't know which years many of the events took place,
as many of the links are broken. Perhaps you can break them down, year by
year for me, as I can't see that data? We can then add your figures to the
FBI ones and come up with a realistic figure for DGUs in the US, for the
five years mentioned previously.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



  #4   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce Don Pearce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,726
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote:

The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics.
It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be
ignored.


Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self
defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the
purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is
unconstitutional.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
Scout Scout is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote:

The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics.
It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be
ignored.


Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self
defence.


Odd,..."shall not be infringed". Seems pretty broad and all incompassing to
me.

It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the
purpose of maintaining an armed militia.


Sorry, I am unable to find the grammatical linkage limiting the protection
to this one and only purpose. Can you provide a structured analysis in which
you establish this limitation linkage you assert exists?


Any other use of a gun is
unconstitutional.


Hardly. 9th and 10th Amendments would protect those right off even if the
2nd did not apply.

That is unless you can show us where the federal government is granted any
specific authority to regulate/control gun ownership among the general
population.


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
Scout Scout is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM


"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 08:16:42 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

Is it "unconstitutional" to do anything not specifically mentioned in
the constitution? Is running a car unconstitutional? Owning a
computer? Space flight?

Don't take that as a vote for gun ownership though.


Well, what it does mean is that the government would be within its
constitutional rights to ban gun ownership for any other purpose.


The whole militia argument is bogus anyway. You need a militia until
the country is sufficiently organised to maintain a specialised army.


Except the whole idea was that the federal government would NEVER maintain a
specialized army or any army in a time of peace.


There seems to be some romantic notion that a lynch-mob armed with
hunting rifles could effectively disagree with the elected government.


They certainly can, and examples exist where they were able to do so.

Which doesn't quite join up with the other American obsession -
"democracy".


Being able to do so allows one to resist an elected government gone wild,
like Nazi Germany. A popularly elected government that killed some 12
Million of it's own people.


  #14   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
Laurence Payne Laurence Payne is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:49:17 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Well, what it does mean is that the government would be within its
constitutional rights to ban gun ownership for any other purpose.


10th Amendment. Please indicate which specific enumeration of power would
allow such a ban.


Surely the American government restricts gun ownership in certain
cases? Convicted criminals, incomptent people, etc.?

Anyway, they need to do what's right, not hide behind the
constitution. It isn't Holy Writ.
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
Laurence Payne Laurence Payne is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:52:55 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

The whole militia argument is bogus anyway. You need a militia until
the country is sufficiently organised to maintain a specialised army.


Except the whole idea was that the federal government would NEVER maintain a
specialized army or any army in a time of peace.


OK. So times have changed. You're not going to get the US Army
disbanded, even if it doesn't meet your reading of the constitution.

It doesn't, I think, prohibit a professional army. You're infering
that intention. Fine. Now infer the intention behind the right to
bear arms. (Clue: ...that bit about a militia.)


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce Don Pearce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,726
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:47:51 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote:

The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics.
It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be
ignored.


Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self
defence.


Odd,..."shall not be infringed". Seems pretty broad and all incompassing to
me.

It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the
purpose of maintaining an armed militia.


Sorry, I am unable to find the grammatical linkage limiting the protection
to this one and only purpose. Can you provide a structured analysis in which
you establish this limitation linkage you assert exists?


I'm thinking of this:

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.


Any other use of a gun is
unconstitutional.


Hardly. 9th and 10th Amendments would protect those right off even if the
2nd did not apply.

That is unless you can show us where the federal government is granted any
specific authority to regulate/control gun ownership among the general
population.


I haven't studied this in any detail, so I could well be wrong.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jfma@ix.netcom.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:11:07 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:52:55 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

The whole militia argument is bogus anyway. You need a militia until
the country is sufficiently organised to maintain a specialised army.


Except the whole idea was that the federal government would NEVER maintain a
specialized army or any army in a time of peace.


OK. So times have changed. You're not going to get the US Army
disbanded, even if it doesn't meet your reading of the constitution.

It doesn't, I think, prohibit a professional army. You're infering
that intention. Fine. Now infer the intention behind the right to
bear arms. (Clue: ...that bit about a militia.)



No, it is not. It is about a right of the people.

  #20   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jfma@ix.netcom.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:06:22 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:49:17 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Well, what it does mean is that the government would be within its
constitutional rights to ban gun ownership for any other purpose.


10th Amendment. Please indicate which specific enumeration of power would
allow such a ban.


Surely the American government restricts gun ownership in certain
cases? Convicted criminals, incomptent people, etc.?



So you are going to disarm the law abiding because of criminals.

Anyway, they need to do what's right, not hide behind the
constitution. It isn't Holy Writ.



So, you are saying that the founding document, the one that
protects free speech and against illegal searches, is no longer valid
and should be ignored because you think it is outdated.



  #22   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jfma@ix.netcom.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:47:51 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote:

The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics.
It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be
ignored.

Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self
defence.


Odd,..."shall not be infringed". Seems pretty broad and all incompassing to
me.

It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the
purpose of maintaining an armed militia.


Sorry, I am unable to find the grammatical linkage limiting the protection
to this one and only purpose. Can you provide a structured analysis in which
you establish this limitation linkage you assert exists?


I'm thinking of this:

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.


Any other use of a gun is
unconstitutional.


Hardly. 9th and 10th Amendments would protect those right off even if the
2nd did not apply.

That is unless you can show us where the federal government is granted any
specific authority to regulate/control gun ownership among the general
population.


I haven't studied this in any detail, so I could well be wrong.



Here is an article you may be interested in reading then:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

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 Schwarzkopf, 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 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 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 a distinguished 17-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
Publisher's
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:

"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 for 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 test 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."

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 follow
analysis
(into which I have 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, constitutes 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 to keep and bear arms is asserted as an 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 a 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:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account
the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was
written
200 years ago, but not 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 tot he security of a free state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, 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 governments 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 American Civil Liberties Union (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 it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian
doublespeak ?
Or will be 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 fortuned, and our sacred
honor ?

(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 other rights reserved.

About the Author

J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by
Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the
CBS "Twilight Zone" episode in which a time-traveling historian
prevents
the JFK assassination. He's also the founder and president of
SoftServ
Publishing, the first publishing company to distribute "paperless
books"
via personal computers and modems.

Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the
Second
Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's
right
to keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal
to
those afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth
amendments.

J. Neil Schulman may be reached through: The SoftServ Paperless
Bookstore, 24-hour bbs: 213-827-3160 (up to 9600 baud). Mail address:
PO Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094. GEnie address: SOFTSERV
--
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce Don Pearce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,726
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:44:28 GMT, wrote:

That is unless you can show us where the federal government is granted any
specific authority to regulate/control gun ownership among the general
population.


I haven't studied this in any detail, so I could well be wrong.



Here is an article you may be interested in reading then:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm


Aren't lawyers great? Any time you put together more than two words on
a page, they will disagree about the meaning.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
dave weil dave weil is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

Hardly. 9th and 10th Amendments would protect those right off even if the
2nd did not apply.


The don't give carte blanche. They aren't ultimate protections.


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
dave weil dave weil is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:37:25 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

I'm thinking of this:

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.


Yeah. The more you look at it, the more you see. They want the State
to be secure. No mention of the people having security FROM the
State.

The intention is State security against outside agression.


Not necessarily. Don't forget, they had just fought against "their
government".
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce Don Pearce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,726
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

On Fri, 04 May 2007 07:31:44 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

Hardly. 9th and 10th Amendments would protect those right off even if the
2nd did not apply.


The don't give carte blanche. They aren't ultimate protections.


No, I didn't write that. It was Scout.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Well, what it does mean is that the government would be within its
constitutional rights to ban gun ownership for any other purpose.


The Righs DO NOT COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
They are PROTECTED by the government. Go back and
read it again until you understand it. Perhaps you missed
the meaning of a word we don't commonly use anymore...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights
  #31   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
Marc Heusser Marc Heusser is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills more than 300 lives in Switzerland per annum

As a reference that supports the argument:

Data from Switzerland (scientific study) - a country that has the
highest rate of suicides involving guns together with the United States,
and about the same goes for homicides:
For Switzerland this means one person per day committing suicide with a
firearm, usually a military weapon.
Small wonder: Under Swiss law all able-bodied men are issued with a
rifle and 50 rounds of ammunition which they can keep after completing
their compulsory military service.
This is on some 7 million people.

See
http://www.nzz.ch/2006/09/11/eng/article7051323.html
http://www.nzz.ch/2006/09/11/eng/article7051323.html
http://www.nzz.ch/2006/12/16/eng/article7357024.html

HTH

Marc

--
Switzerland/Europe
http://www.heusser.com
remove CHEERS and from MERCIAL to get valid e-mail
  #32   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills more than 300 lives in Switzerland per annum

Guys, can you please remove rec.audio.pro from the Newsgroups line on
this thread? It really doesn't have much to do with audio.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jwilliams3@audioupgrades.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

On May 4, 4:44 am, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:47:51 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote:


The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics.
It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be
ignored.


Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self
defence.


Odd,..."shall not be infringed". Seems pretty broad and all incompassing to
me.


It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the
purpose of maintaining an armed militia.


Sorry, I am unable to find the grammatical linkage limiting the protection
to this one and only purpose. Can you provide a structured analysis in which
you establish this limitation linkage you assert exists?


I'm thinking of this:


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.


Any other use of a gun is
unconstitutional.


Hardly. 9th and 10th Amendments would protect those right off even if the
2nd did not apply.


That is unless you can show us where the federal government is granted any
specific authority to regulate/control gun ownership among the general
population.


I haven't studied this in any detail, so I could well be wrong.


Here is an article you may be interested in reading then:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

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 Schwarzkopf, 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 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 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 a distinguished 17-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
Publisher's
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:

"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 for 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 test 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."

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 follow
analysis
(into which I have 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, constitutes 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 to keep and bear arms is asserted as an 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 a 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:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account
the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was
written
200 years ago, but not 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 tot he security of a free state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, 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 governments 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 American Civil Liberties Union (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 it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian
doublespeak ?
Or will be 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 fortuned, and our sacred
honor ?

(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 other rights reserved.

About the Author

J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by
Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the
CBS "Twilight Zone" episode in which a time-traveling historian
prevents
the JFK assassination. He's also the founder and president of
SoftServ
Publishing, the first publishing company to distribute "paperless
books"
via personal computers and modems.

Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the
Second
Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's
right
to keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal
to
those afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth
amendments.

J. Neil Schulman may be reached through: The SoftServ Paperless
Bookstore, 24-hour bbs: 213-827-3160 (up to 9600 baud). Mail address:
PO Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094. GEnie address: SOFTSERV
--


Great, a bunch of LA "intellectuals" telling me how to disect the
english language, some being from that bastian of higher learning, the
failed LA city school system, the worst in the country. They should
get together with Bill Clinton to re-write Websters "depends on what
the meaning of the word is, is".

As to the rest of you, read this: "More Guns, Less Crime" by John
Lott.

I'll be glad to give up my gun, right after the rest of you give up
yours first.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

  #34   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
dave weil dave weil is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 170
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

On Fri, 04 May 2007 12:33:33 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 07:31:44 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT,
(Don Pearce)
wrote:

Hardly. 9th and 10th Amendments would protect those right off even if the
2nd did not apply.


The don't give carte blanche. They aren't ultimate protections.


No, I didn't write that. It was Scout.


Sorry about the editing...

  #35   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jfma@ix.netcom.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:48:30 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:41:13 GMT,
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:37:25 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT,
(Don Pearce)
wrote:

I'm thinking of this:

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.

Yeah. The more you look at it, the more you see. They want the State
to be secure. No mention of the people having security FROM the
State.

The intention is State security against outside agression. The means
is a citizen's militia. A "well regulated" one. Regulated by who?
Presumably the elected government. Thats what governments do,
regulate things. If you don't WANT regulation, fine. But the
constitution demands it.



Where does it demand regulation or does it infer that it would be
a good thing?


The words "well regulated" may be a clue.



Those words do not necessarily mean government regulations. A
well regulated clock is one that is functioning properly.



  #39   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
[email protected] jfma@ix.netcom.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:52:38 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:44:28 GMT,
wrote:

That is unless you can show us where the federal government is granted any
specific authority to regulate/control gun ownership among the general
population.


I haven't studied this in any detail, so I could well be wrong.



Here is an article you may be interested in reading then:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm


Aren't lawyers great? Any time you put together more than two words on
a page, they will disagree about the meaning.



I see that you can't make cogent rebuttals of the information but
have to attack the persons that wrote it.

  #40   Report Post  
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce Don Pearce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,726
Default Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:02:32 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:48:30 GMT,
(Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:41:13 GMT,
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:37:25 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT,
(Don Pearce)
wrote:

I'm thinking of this:

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.

Yeah. The more you look at it, the more you see. They want the State
to be secure. No mention of the people having security FROM the
State.

The intention is State security against outside agression. The means
is a citizen's militia. A "well regulated" one. Regulated by who?
Presumably the elected government. Thats what governments do,
regulate things. If you don't WANT regulation, fine. But the
constitution demands it.


Where does it demand regulation or does it infer that it would be
a good thing?


The words "well regulated" may be a clue.



Those words do not necessarily mean government regulations. A
well regulated clock is one that is functioning properly.


Individuals holding guns in the present ad hoc manner is clearly
totally unregulated. A well-reguated militia would be one that trains
regularly, obeys a command structure and understands the nature of its
potential enemy. It will also have strict rules of engagement with the
designated enemy. Private citizens taking pot shots at other private
citizens (for whatever reason) is the antithesis of well-regulated.

A good solution would be to allow continued gun ownership, but keep
the guns locked at the militia headquarters, to be distributed in time
of national need.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do the Thiele-Small laws move design quality differences over to the drivers? Don Pearce Tech 3 October 10th 05 06:50 AM
* Do the unwritten laws of EQ-ing allow this? Phillip Moreau Pro Audio 63 October 10th 03 02:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:59 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"