[Jenn]

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:31:12 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:16:02 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro 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.?

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

Using that argument allows the government to do _anything_ it wants
to, that's why there is a constitution.

It already has by introducing religion to the heart of government.
That was specifically excluded by the founding fathers.

Where? Show us where in the Constitution it says that there
shall be no religion.

That's not what he said.

[Jenn]

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:03:51 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:34:07 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:12:13 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

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.


So, you want a government controlled armed force like the
National Guard that is a branch to the regular army then? One that is
directly commanded by those that might be the ones that are
tyrannizing the general citizenry.


The stated purpose of said militia is the protection of democracy.

Where does the Second Amendment say that? You seem to be pulling
your replies from where the sun doesn't shine.

That would be your democratically elected government.


We are a republican form of government if you really knew
anything.

You deny that the government is democratically elected?

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 23:37:24 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:31:12 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:16:02 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro 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.?

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

Using that argument allows the government to do _anything_ it wants
to, that's why there is a constitution.

It already has by introducing religion to the heart of government.
That was specifically excluded by the founding fathers.

Where? Show us where in the Constitution it says that there
shall be no religion.

That's not what he said.


It was implied by his terminology.

[Jenn]

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 23:37:24 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:31:12 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:16:02 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro 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.?

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

Using that argument allows the government to do _anything_ it wants
to, that's why there is a constitution.

It already has by introducing religion to the heart of government.
That was specifically excluded by the founding fathers.

Where? Show us where in the Constitution it says that there
shall be no religion.

That's not what he said.


It was implied by his terminology.

OOOOOKKKKKKK...

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 23:38:57 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:03:51 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:34:07 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:12:13 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

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.


So, you want a government controlled armed force like the
National Guard that is a branch to the regular army then? One that is
directly commanded by those that might be the ones that are
tyrannizing the general citizenry.


The stated purpose of said militia is the protection of democracy.

Where does the Second Amendment say that? You seem to be pulling
your replies from where the sun doesn't shine.

That would be your democratically elected government.


We are a republican form of government if you really knew
anything.

You deny that the government is democratically elected?

How we elect our officials has no bearing on the type of
government we are. The United States is a republic. Is Venezuela a
democratic government because they democratically elected their
governing body? They elected Hugo Chavez and see what they have ended
up with.

[Jenn]

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 23:38:57 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:03:51 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:34:07 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:12:13 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

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.


So, you want a government controlled armed force like the
National Guard that is a branch to the regular army then? One that is
directly commanded by those that might be the ones that are
tyrannizing the general citizenry.


The stated purpose of said militia is the protection of democracy.

Where does the Second Amendment say that? You seem to be pulling
your replies from where the sun doesn't shine.

That would be your democratically elected government.


We are a republican form of government if you really knew
anything.

You deny that the government is democratically elected?

How we elect our officials has no bearing on the type of
government we are.

He didn't comment on our form of government, only that it's
democratically elected, which it certainly is.

The United States is a republic.

Of course.

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:27:31 GMT, wrote:

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.

It has iconic stature. Use the good bits, the relevant bits. Free
speech is a great ideal. But so is a law of libel. Go back a few
years, try speaking blasphemy.

It always HAS been partially ignored, modified as necessary.

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:34:07 GMT, wrote:

So, you want a government controlled armed force like the
National Guard that is a branch to the regular army then? One that is
directly commanded by those that might be the ones that are
tyrannizing the general citizenry.

Not particularly. But that seems a valid reading of what the
constitution wants.

[Scout]

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:27:31 GMT, wrote:

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.

It has iconic stature. Use the good bits, the relevant bits. Free
speech is a great ideal. But so is a law of libel.

Sorry, but that is harm that you do to another without just cause by stating
something which is not true. Naturally it is a violation. Just as harming
someone with a gun without just cause isn't protected either. However, just
because I can't lie about someone doesn't mean I don't have free
speech/press.

Go back a few
years, try speaking blasphemy.

Please indicate a federal court case in which someone was convicted of
blasphemy after the 1st Amendment was ratified, or a state court case after
the 1st was applied to the states via the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS.


It always HAS been partially ignored, modified as necessary.

Yea, when it directly threatens or harms another without just cause. So
where is your comparable condition?

[Scout]

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
news
On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:34:07 GMT, wrote:

So, you want a government controlled armed force like the
National Guard that is a branch to the regular army then? One that is
directly commanded by those that might be the ones that are
tyrannizing the general citizenry.

Not particularly. But that seems a valid reading of what the
constitution wants.

Only if you ignore the language and meaning of what is written.

For example....how do you manage to pervert the meaning of "the people" to
mean just "the militia" and how do you pervert that to mean "the military"?

[SaPeIsMa]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...


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.


English not your first language ?

In what way do you imgaine that the phrase
"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."
does NOT clearly state, that it's the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear
arms that shall not be infringed ?

The intent is very clear

Try to parse the following
"A well read population, being necessary to the security of a free
State,
the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
Would you suggest that ONLY that part of the population that is well-read
would have the right to keep and read books ?
Or is it ALL the people who have a right to keep and read books SO THAT
THEY WOULD BE a well-read population ?

Which comes first bub ?
Try to put the horse BEFORE the cart and not the other way around the next
time

[SaPeIsMa]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 07:49:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

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

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.

If only the Constitution had been written by English teachers
chuckle.

He made a big mistake in his anaylsis though. In trying to prove that
the sentence was unconditional, he assumed a state of unconditionality
in the beginning as part of his argument.

Big no-no.

I wonder how a British language expert would weigh in though, since
"American useage" was still in its infancy and they were far more
British than current day American. I think that everyone agrees that,
in terms of an Americanism, it's deficient. I wonder if it falls under
an acceptable British construction (I highly doubt it). Chances are,
it's just a poorly-worded sentence.

Maybe I'll watch some Masterpiece Theare and see if anything similar
comes up g.

Well, I think we need to assume that - badly worded or not - they
didn't put the stuff about a militia in there because they thought the
document was looking a bit thin. It was there because it mattered.


yes
It's called a JUSTIFICATION
You can look up the meaning here
http://m-w.com/dictionary/justification

Notice that justification is NOT a RESTRICTION
You can look up that meaning here
http://m-w.com/dictionary/restriction

And as for a language expert weighing in on the issue
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

And here's an analysis that blows your orginal claim right out of the water
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-...e.asp?aid=3230

And I like in particular the last paragraph, which goes:
"Perhaps the deterioration of American education is illustrated
by the high correlation between the number of years a person
has attended school and his inability to understand the words
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
It is more likely, though, that those who interpret the Second Amendment
to preclude an individual right to own guns are driven by their
political agenda.
Whichever the case, they do themselves no credit when they tell us
that a simple, elegant sentence means the opposite of what it clearly
says."

[SaPeIsMa]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:16:02 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro 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.?

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

Using that argument allows the government to do _anything_ it wants
to, that's why there is a constitution.

It already has by introducing religion to the heart of government.
That was specifically excluded by the founding fathers.


No it wasn't
The ONLY thing that was excluded was that there should be no OFFICIAL
religion as in "Church of England"
The founders had Judeo-Christian Morals and Ethics as the basis of the
Constitution
And they had ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEMS metionning God in their documents or
speeches
http://www.americanvision.org/articl...e/04-29-05.asp
http://www.americanvision.org/articl...e/05-02-05.asp

[SaPeIsMa]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:59:59 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro Don Pearce wrote:

It already has by introducing religion to the heart of government.
That was specifically excluded by the founding fathers.

d


Read the first amendment, it says congress may not establish a
religion. "Established religion" had a very specific meaning to the
writers of the constitution, one where the clergy were directly
supported by the government, and in some cases were government
officers. They did not exclude religion from the government, just
making _one_ religion preminent. Note especially the "free exercise
thereof" clause.

Jerry

But the purpose of this amendment was to prevent any religion from
gaining a foothold within government. There were good reasons for this
- they did not want to import a huge amount of bigoted unpleasantness
from Europe. Bush has totally gone against the spirit of this
amendment by involving the Christian ministry at the heart of his
government. The purpose of this amendment was as much "freedom from"
as "freedom of" religion.


So do tell us where Bush has gone against the spirit of the amendment
Take as many screens as you need

And by the way, why don't you go read the second inaugural speech of
Eisenhower
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres55.html
2nd paragraph
"Before all else, we seek, upon our common labor as a nation,
the blessings of Almighty God.
And the hopes in our hearts fashion the deepest prayers of our whole
people."
3rd to last paragraph
"And so the prayer of our people carries far beyond our own frontiers,
to the wide world of our duty and our destiny."

Look at Kennedy's Inagural speech
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html
1st paragraph
"...For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath
our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago."
2n paragraph
"..the belief that the rights of man come not from
the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."
last paragraph
"..asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth
God's work must truly be our own."

In what was is this any different from what Bush may have done ?

[SaPeIsMa]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:03:51 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:34:07 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:12:13 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

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.


So, you want a government controlled armed force like the
National Guard that is a branch to the regular army then? One that is
directly commanded by those that might be the ones that are
tyrannizing the general citizenry.


The stated purpose of said militia is the protection of democracy.

Where does the Second Amendment say that? You seem to be pulling
your replies from where the sun doesn't shine.

That would be your democratically elected government.


We are a republican form of government if you really knew
anything.

You deny that the government is democratically elected?

Did he make ANY denial that the government was democratically elected ?
There is a difference between a Parliamentary Goverment and a Constitutional
Republic
For one thing, unlike the government of the UK, the Republic in the US was
built up based on a document called a Constitution.
In the UK, the government was built down from a monarchy

[SaPeIsMa]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 4, 11:12 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
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.


Who keeps the keys? And why? Who says what is a national emergency?

I say bull****.

The primary purpose of an armed populace is, quite bluntly, terror.
Terror against politicians who would be dictators.

Politicians who support gun control are by definition nascent
traitors or brigands.


Isn't that what started the whole shebang at Concord
The Brits wanted to take over that armory and hang on the the keys
The people of Concord realised that that was NOT a good idea

ANd now we have moro.. uh.. Brits coming at us 230 years later trying to
sell us the same crap.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Scout" wrote in message
news:U8O_h.213$wy2.157@trnddc03...

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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.

Only if your presumption is correct. Is it?



pearce is making the classic mistake of using the current meaning of
"well-regulated" instead of the meaning in the late 18th Century
In those days "well regulated" meant "properly functionning" and not "well
defined and controlled by laws and regulations"

[SaPeIsMa]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
Don Pearce wrote:

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


Amendments cannot be interpreted as a restriction on people - that is
reserved for ordinary law. Amendments are to be interpreted as a
restriction on the powers of government. The standalone
sentence at the last is self-sufficient enough that there will
always be people who read it that way. That's the "the right...
shall not be infringed" part.

The "embarrassing second" is one a' those things, though...


It's only "embarrassing" to those with reading comprehension issues and
agendas

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:47:48 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:59:59 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro Don Pearce wrote:

It already has by introducing religion to the heart of government.
That was specifically excluded by the founding fathers.

d


Read the first amendment, it says congress may not establish a
religion. "Established religion" had a very specific meaning to the
writers of the constitution, one where the clergy were directly
supported by the government, and in some cases were government
officers. They did not exclude religion from the government, just
making _one_ religion preminent. Note especially the "free exercise
thereof" clause.

Jerry

But the purpose of this amendment was to prevent any religion from
gaining a foothold within government. There were good reasons for this
- they did not want to import a huge amount of bigoted unpleasantness
from Europe. Bush has totally gone against the spirit of this
amendment by involving the Christian ministry at the heart of his
government. The purpose of this amendment was as much "freedom from"
as "freedom of" religion.


So do tell us where Bush has gone against the spirit of the amendment
Take as many screens as you need

And by the way, why don't you go read the second inaugural speech of
Eisenhower
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres55.html
2nd paragraph
"Before all else, we seek, upon our common labor as a nation,
the blessings of Almighty God.
And the hopes in our hearts fashion the deepest prayers of our whole
people."
3rd to last paragraph
"And so the prayer of our people carries far beyond our own frontiers,
to the wide world of our duty and our destiny."

Look at Kennedy's Inagural speech
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html
1st paragraph
"...For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath
our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago."
2n paragraph
"..the belief that the rights of man come not from
the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."
last paragraph
"..asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth
God's work must truly be our own."

In what was is this any different from what Bush may have done ?




This is because they were peasant-brained men, who had superstition at
the heart of their reasoning. The worst of them all was that paragon
(as I'm sure some here will see him) Senator Joe McCarthy. Among his
other pleasant acts he had the "under God" bit put in the oath.
Everybody since the founding of your country has failed to live up to
the aspirations of the founders.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 22:01:46 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:31:12 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:16:02 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro 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.?

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

Using that argument allows the government to do _anything_ it wants
to, that's why there is a constitution.

It already has by introducing religion to the heart of government.
That was specifically excluded by the founding fathers.

Where? Show us where in the Constitution it says that there
shall be no religion. It says that there "shall be no law respecting
an establishment of religion". In other words there shall be no
government mandated state religion like the King established the only
one religion that could be practiced and that all others would be
persecuted.

That will do for me.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 5 May 2007 00:04:31 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:


"Scout" wrote in message
news:U8O_h.213$wy2.157@trnddc03...

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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.

Only if your presumption is correct. Is it?



pearce is making the classic mistake of using the current meaning of
"well-regulated" instead of the meaning in the late 18th Century
In those days "well regulated" meant "properly functionning" and not "well
defined and controlled by laws and regulations"


Then may I counter that by saying y'all are making the classic mistake
of believing that "bear arms" means carry a gun. It doesn't. By the
original definition. you can bear arms with a sword, a sharp stick, a
club - all sorts of things. So why do you all insist that it be a gun?
Is it by any chance linked with the ridiculous culture of machismo
that permeates Hollywood films?

I give up this argument. I leave you to your Columbines and your
Virginia Techs and the mind-numbing ignorance that causes them.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:33:21 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 07:49:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

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

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.

If only the Constitution had been written by English teachers
chuckle.

He made a big mistake in his anaylsis though. In trying to prove that
the sentence was unconditional, he assumed a state of unconditionality
in the beginning as part of his argument.

Big no-no.

I wonder how a British language expert would weigh in though, since
"American useage" was still in its infancy and they were far more
British than current day American. I think that everyone agrees that,
in terms of an Americanism, it's deficient. I wonder if it falls under
an acceptable British construction (I highly doubt it). Chances are,
it's just a poorly-worded sentence.

Maybe I'll watch some Masterpiece Theare and see if anything similar
comes up g.

Well, I think we need to assume that - badly worded or not - they
didn't put the stuff about a militia in there because they thought the
document was looking a bit thin. It was there because it mattered.


yes
It's called a JUSTIFICATION
You can look up the meaning here
http://m-w.com/dictionary/justification

Notice that justification is NOT a RESTRICTION
You can look up that meaning here
http://m-w.com/dictionary/restriction

And as for a language expert weighing in on the issue
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

And here's an analysis that blows your orginal claim right out of the water
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-...e.asp?aid=3230

And I like in particular the last paragraph, which goes:
"Perhaps the deterioration of American education is illustrated
by the high correlation between the number of years a person
has attended school and his inability to understand the words
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
It is more likely, though, that those who interpret the Second Amendment
to preclude an individual right to own guns are driven by their
political agenda.
Whichever the case, they do themselves no credit when they tell us
that a simple, elegant sentence means the opposite of what it clearly
says."


Gosh! Genuine Orwellian doublespeak. Nice piece of research.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:24:25 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...


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.


English not your first language ?

In what way do you imgaine that the phrase
"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."
does NOT clearly state, that it's the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear
arms that shall not be infringed ?

The intent is very clear

Try to parse the following
"A well read population, being necessary to the security of a free
State,
the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
Would you suggest that ONLY that part of the population that is well-read
would have the right to keep and read books ?
Or is it ALL the people who have a right to keep and read books SO THAT
THEY WOULD BE a well-read population ?

Which comes first bub ?
Try to put the horse BEFORE the cart and not the other way around the next
time




I notice that you stick with the "first draft" punctuation, which was
changed in order to clarify the meaning of the 2nd amendment. And of
course your analogy fails hopelessly.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Scout]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 00:04:31 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:


"Scout" wrote in message
news:U8O_h.213$wy2.157@trnddc03...

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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.

Only if your presumption is correct. Is it?



pearce is making the classic mistake of using the current meaning of
"well-regulated" instead of the meaning in the late 18th Century
In those days "well regulated" meant "properly functionning" and not "well
defined and controlled by laws and regulations"


Then may I counter that by saying y'all are making the classic mistake
of believing that "bear arms" means carry a gun.

It does mean that, in part. Since guns are a part of arms. Not the only
part, but certainly part.

It doesn't. By the
original definition. you can bear arms with a sword, a sharp stick, a
club - all sorts of things.

Exactly.

So why do you all insist that it be a gun?

Because that is currently the best general purpose weapon in common useage.
If someone wants to carry around a broad sword instead, I have no problems
with it. It is his right to do so.

Is it by any chance linked with the ridiculous culture of machismo
that permeates Hollywood films?

Well Hollywood films are fiction...........

I give up this argument.

Because you can't support it?

I leave you to your Columbines and your
Virginia Techs and the mind-numbing ignorance that causes them.

Yep, in both cases we told people they couldn't have guns there, and the
only ones that did were the criminals.

[Scout]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:24:25 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...


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.


English not your first language ?

In what way do you imgaine that the phrase
"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."
does NOT clearly state, that it's the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear
arms that shall not be infringed ?

The intent is very clear

Try to parse the following
"A well read population, being necessary to the security of a free
State,
the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Would you suggest that ONLY that part of the population that is well-read
would have the right to keep and read books ?
Or is it ALL the people who have a right to keep and read books SO
THAT
THEY WOULD BE a well-read population ?

Which comes first bub ?
Try to put the horse BEFORE the cart and not the other way around the next
time




I notice that you stick with the "first draft" punctuation, which was
changed in order to clarify the meaning of the 2nd amendment. And of
course your analogy fails hopelessly.

Actually, copies of the 2nd exist with 2, 3 and even 4 commas. The most
common are the 3 and 4 variety and the presence of the commas doesn't alter
the meaning that exists.

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 09:33:49 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

I leave you to your Columbines and your
Virginia Techs and the mind-numbing ignorance that causes them.

Yep, in both cases we told people they couldn't have guns there, and the
only ones that did were the criminals.



Look. To have a VT or Columbine you need two things. You need somebody
who has gone crazy, and you need ready access to a gun. You can't
legislate against craziness; you can legislate against guns. Do the
maths.

The VT guy bought his guns legitimately in a shop. If he was unable to
do that, VT would not have happened.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Scout]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 May 2007 09:33:49 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

I leave you to your Columbines and your
Virginia Techs and the mind-numbing ignorance that causes them.

Yep, in both cases we told people they couldn't have guns there, and the
only ones that did were the criminals.



Look. To have a VT or Columbine you need two things.

A person willing to kill and a place where the victims are unarmed?


You need somebody
who has gone crazy, and you need ready access to a gun.

What if they simply used bombs? Would that eliminate the problem?


You can't
legislate against craziness; you can legislate against guns. Do the
maths.

Actually, you can legislate against craziness. The problem is we no longer
instutionalize such people nor properly enter that data into the background
check denial list.

However, you point to the flaw in your argument. You can't stop craziness.
As long as you have someone willing to kill, they WILL find a way to do so.
So banning guns is not going to stop them from killing or coming up with a
way to kill, even assuming they can't illegally aquire guns. What you have
done is made it all but impossible for anyone to defend themselves against
such events when they occur.


The VT guy bought his guns legitimately in a shop.

No, he violated at least 2 federal laws and engaged in a felony to do so.

If he was unable to
do that, VT would not have happened.

Sure, instead he could have built bombs and planted them around campus.

......or simply ignored the laws that said he couldn't do so and get guns
away. Like he did.

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 02:06:07 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

It always HAS been partially ignored, modified as necessary.

Yea, when it directly threatens or harms another without just cause. So
where is your comparable condition?

Easy. The number of people who get killed or injured in countries
with a gun culture. You just shot yourself in the foot. Pity you
had a gun handy :-)

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 02:07:13 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Not particularly. But that seems a valid reading of what the
constitution wants.

Only if you ignore the language and meaning of what is written.

For example....how do you manage to pervert the meaning of "the people" to
mean just "the militia" and how do you pervert that to mean "the military"?

You've got it the wrong way round. They wanted a well-regulated
militia, so it was necessary to allow the people to own guns. The
people WERE the militia. Remember "people" only meant adult white
Christian men. That was implicit in the mores of the era. If full
rights were intended for anyone else, there was a notable failure to
even attempt implementing the policy :-)

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:37:43 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

The founders had Judeo-Christian Morals and Ethics as the basis of the
Constitution

JUDEO-Christian? Come, now. That's a very modern bit of
political-correctness, only useful in defining the gang who don't like
Muslims.

[Bruce]

Jenn wrote in

y.com:




You deny that the government is democratically elected?

How we elect our officials has no bearing on the type of
government we are.

He didn't comment on our form of government, only that it's
democratically elected, which it certainly is.

The Electoral College selects the President, so no, it isn't purely
democratically elected.

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:47:48 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

So do tell us where Bush has gone against the spirit of the amendment
Take as many screens as you need

One moment you're minutely parsing the language, now you think you can
define the "spirit". Are you sure you'er studying the evidence?
Sounds more like you're merely justifing a belief.

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:59:33 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

Did he make ANY denial that the government was democratically elected ?
There is a difference between a Parliamentary Goverment and a Constitutional
Republic
For one thing, unlike the government of the UK, the Republic in the US was
built up based on a document called a Constitution.
In the UK, the government was built down from a monarchy

In the UK the monarch is a moderating infulence that denies absolute
power to the government. In America you can cite the constitution. In
practice both give an essentially civilised society a flag to salute.
But neither prevent either government or executive from doing anything
they may consider expedient.

[Bruce]

(Don Pearce) wrote in news:4642506a.82908312
@news.plus.net:


Look. To have a VT or Columbine you need two things. You need somebody
who has gone crazy, and you need ready access to a gun.

No, you don't. He could have used a bomb, club, knife, combinations
thereof, or even (GASP!) a car......

Eveyone wants to blame the gun and not recognize that evil exists in the
world. How many people did Ted Bundy shoot, or Jack the Ripper??

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 5 May 2007 00:04:31 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

pearce is making the classic mistake of using the current meaning of
"well-regulated" instead of the meaning in the late 18th Century
In those days "well regulated" meant "properly functionning" and not "well
defined and controlled by laws and regulations"

When it comes to organising an armed militia, where's the distinction?
We're a mobile society. You want one town where you're shot at for
wearing a white hat, the next town for wearing a black one?

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 12:34:00 GMT, Bruce wrote:

Look. To have a VT or Columbine you need two things. You need somebody
who has gone crazy, and you need ready access to a gun.

No, you don't. He could have used a bomb, club, knife, combinations
thereof, or even (GASP!) a car......

Eveyone wants to blame the gun and not recognize that evil exists in the
world. How many people did Ted Bundy shoot, or Jack the Ripper??

You really WANT your gun, don't you? :-)

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 13:57:22 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2007 12:34:00 GMT, Bruce wrote:

Look. To have a VT or Columbine you need two things. You need somebody
who has gone crazy, and you need ready access to a gun.

No, you don't. He could have used a bomb, club, knife, combinations
thereof, or even (GASP!) a car......

Eveyone wants to blame the gun and not recognize that evil exists in the
world. How many people did Ted Bundy shoot, or Jack the Ripper??

You really WANT your gun, don't you? :-)

Strange isn't it? I don't have a gun, nor do I want one and nor do any
of my friends. I go out at night here in London without feeling the
slightest fear. This is clearly not a situation that Scout and the
like experience. They spend their lives wondering where an attack is
going to come from and making sure they have a weapon handy to deal
with it. That is a really sad way to exist, and I'm so glad I live in
a civilized country rather than a third world one, which it is now
clear the US is (American Idol have even bundled it with Africa in
their aid campaign).

Of course it is also possible that the US is really not that bad, and
Scout and co are simply socially underdeveloped - adults with
adolescent brains.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[dave weil]

On 4 May 2007 15:45:16 -0700, John-Melb
wrote:

On May 5, 2:27 am, dave weil wrote:

Well, also in the context of non-repeating front-loading single shot
bulky weapons. - Hide quoted text -

That's completely correct Dave, and "freedom of speech" only applies
to the spoken word or words written with a quill pen!

See below.

FAAAAAARCK!

Nurse!

Under your arguement there is NO freedom of speech for any word
transmitted by electronic means?

Nope. But if you want to think that, you're welcome to. When you can
understand the difference between context and requirement, you can get
back to me.

I guess you're trying to say that the transmission of threats and
information used to kill hundreds, if not thousands of people is
protected in any means, either verbally or in any media, is absolutely
protected by the 1st. I guess I can publish in your hometown newspaper
that you are part of a terrorist cell, or that you run a prostituion
ring. See, two can play the absurdist game.

I can see they've changed the medication at the Giggling Academy
again.

Well, at least they've taught you to read. Now, when the nurse comes
by, you'll at least be able to ask for the med by name instead of
pointing at "the pretty yellow bottle".

[dave weil]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 23:53:44 GMT, wrote:

That would be your democratically elected government.


We are a republican form of government if you really knew
anything.

You deny that the government is democratically elected?

How we elect our officials has no bearing on the type of
government we are. The United States is a republic. Is Venezuela a
democratic government because they democratically elected their
governing body? They elected Hugo Chavez and see what they have ended
up with.

Well, he DID say "democratically elected government".

So, what was your point again?

[Scout]

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 May 2007 02:06:07 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

********************Restored Context************
(Attributes adjusted)

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.

It has iconic stature. Use the good bits, the relevant bits. Free
speech is a great ideal. But so is a law of libel.

Sorry, but that is harm that you do to another without just cause by
stating
something which is not true. Naturally it is a violation. Just as harming
someone with a gun without just cause isn't protected either. However,
just
because I can't lie about someone doesn't mean I don't have free
speech/press.

Go back a few
years, try speaking blasphemy.

Please indicate a federal court case in which someone was convicted of
blasphemy after the 1st Amendment was ratified, or a state court case
after
the 1st was applied to the states via the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS.


************End**********


It always HAS been partially ignored, modified as necessary.

Yea, when it directly threatens or harms another without just cause. So
where is your comparable condition?

Easy. The number of people who get killed or injured in countries
with a gun culture.

And all those killed in countries without one.

I will note you didn't establish anything that refutes the point being made
and indeed had to snip out the bulk of the context so that people might not
notice you have failed to do so.


You just shot yourself in the foot. Pity you
had a gun handy :-)

No, you just showed your fundamental dishonesty and inability to contest the
point being made.