From: cory@enigami.mv.com (Cory Kempf)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 11:39:55 EST
Organization: EnigamI, Inc., Nashua, NH
Reply-To: cory@enigami.mv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <1992Aug24.215545.25462@mips2.ma30.bull.com> (ne.politics), mgelman@cyclades.ma30.bull.com (Michael A. Gelman) writes:
>In article <DRG.92Aug24170336@bubba.ma30.bull.com>, drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson) writes:

>|> Here is the text for reference: 
>|>     "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."

>While I'm sure a linguistic analysis would be interesting, it is
>analysis done by the *lawyers* that is relevent.  

Were the framers of the constitution members of the American Bar Association?
Or were they common men?  Just because someone has been admited by
the bar association to practice law does not give them the right to
rewrite the constitution.  Which is why the jury system exists.  ANY
jury (which is made up of common men, *NOT* lawyers) has the right
to try the *LAW* was well as the accused.  Should they find that a
law is invalid, *THAT LAW IS ELIMINATED*  (for some reason though,
the legislature and the judiciary try to hide this fact).

There is also a requirement in the constitution that states that members
of one branch may not serve in another.  Lawyers are members of the
judiciary.  In theory, they are not allowed to serve in the legislature. 

>										Just because it says
>there in black and white that the right can't be infringed, doesn't
>mean that it can't be controlled.

Has someone changed the english language in the past year or so? 
Last time I looked (30 seconds ago), the OED defined "infringe" as:

	Infringe: 1. To break, shatter; to break down, crush, destroy,
	to foil, defeat, frustrate; to cancel, invalidate.  2. To commit
	a breach or infraction of (a law, obligation, right, etc); to 
	transgress, contravene.  3. To refute; to contradict, deny.

	4. To break the force or diminish the strength of; to weaken,
	enfeable, impair; to mitigate

	[this definition was current, based on the examples cited in the text
	around 1694: "Salmon bate's disp. (1715) 533/2 It will much more infringe
	the corrosive quality of the remaining acid spirits.]

	5.  To break in or encroach on or upon.

	[this definition was actually used by Jefferson: "1774 Jefferson
	autobiog. App Wks. 1859 I. 141 Let no act be passed by any one
	legislature which may infringe upon the rights and liberties of another]

It would seem to me that any attempt to limit the right of the people
to keep and bear arms ("control") would be an infringement under most
of the above definitions.  

>In my opinion (I'm not a lawyer), none of the gun control proposals I've
>seen violate the constitution.

Considering that all of the one's promoted by HCI (the leading source
of anti-gun legislation) are designed to eliminate the second amendment
rights, that is a pretty hard statement to back up.  Lets see: outright
*BANNING* of certain types of weapons would qualify as an infringement
(out right elimination of the right w.r.t. those weapons), waiting
periods ("a right delayed is a right denied") essentually mean that
for an arbitrary period of time, the right is eliminated, required
"aproval" by some government flunky (if sie says no, poof, the right
is gone), required attendance at a course that the government is "supposed"
to give (if they "forget" to give it, or it is eliminated due to a
"budget cut", etc.) the right is also eliminated.  

I would say that all of these count as infringements under any common
usage of the term.  A rather unsuportable stand to take.  But the
Gun-Banners are not constrained by mere logic or reasoning.

>And, finally, regarding your quotes from the framers, I agree that it
>is important to understand why the constitution says what it says, and
>what they meant.  But...The world has changed.  Original intent is the
>place to start, but not the place to end.

Has it really?  There are still governments.  They still try to run
people's lifes.  They still try to enslave free men.  They still use
force to take property from its rightful owners.  And, as can be seen
is any newspaper today, the people's right to overthrow a tyranical
government is still needed and used.  There is still crime.  The police
still have no responsibility to protect citizens.  I don't see any 
fundimental changes between now and europe of the 18th century.

In the final analysis, in a free society, governments only exists with 
the consent of the people being ruled.  Eliminating / reducing
the rights to keep and bear arms is an attempt remove the right of
the people to withhold that consent.  Think about it.

+C


-------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Kempf                    EnigamI, Inc.
cory@enigami.mv.com           ...!decvax!enigami!cory
Annon:	wi.5036@wizvax.methuen.ma.us

"F' cryin' out loud, it's *your* life; shouldn't you at least examine 
your lifestyle values to see if they are really what *you* want."
										--Keith Lim
Newsgroups: ne.politics