From: cory@enigami.mv.com (Cory Kempf)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bearing arms: our first line of defense
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:59:38 GMT
Reply-To: cory@enigami.mv.com
Organization: EnigamI, Inc., Nashua, NH
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <1992Aug27.200220.26297@mips2.ma30.bull.com> (ne.politics), mgelman@cyclades.ma30.bull.com (Michael A. Gelman) writes:
>In article <0105011F.c4rsay@dragon.enigami.mv.com>, cory@enigami.mv.com (Cory Kempf) writes:
>|> In article <1992Aug24.215545.25462@mips2.ma30.bull.com> (ne.politics), mgelman@cyclades.ma30.bull.com (Michael A. Gelman) 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."

>|> 														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).

>It is my understanding (although I haven't checked) that this
>statement about juries is incorrect.

Check.  There was a recent bill proposed in the NH legislature by
Cal Warburton called the "Fully Informed Jury Act".  Esentually, it
would require that ALL juries be informed of this right.

Most Naturists, and just about all Libertarians are aware of this.
I would expect that most lawyers are too.

>									(Think about this: this
>gives 12 random (unelected) people veto power over the legislature.
>No overturn, no accountablilty.  You want that?  I don't.)

Frightening concept: a government of, by, and for the people.

But it just allows that a jury can overturn a law that they do not
think is just -- however, I believe that they must *ALL* agree to
do it.  If twelve people, selected at random agree unanymously that
a law is infair, isn't there a real good chance that it is?

Consider the Supreme Court: no overturn, no accountability, unelected.

>The only things that gives lawyers any "uncommon"ness is their
>training.  I don't have that (although I feel I'm aquainted with law
>and legal reasoning), and I would guess from your comments neither do
>you. 

Has it occured to you that the only reason that we need so many lawyers
is that we have lawyers making the laws?  And that they have a vested
interest in ensuring that the uninitiated (e.g. anyone who is *not*
a lawyer) do not have access to the law, except via a lawyer.  

Or can you think of a *GOOD* reason why lawyers MUST use Latin?
 
>There are two issues here: "Is all gun control unconstitutional?" and "Is
>it a good idea?"  In the latter, we can agree to disagree and fight it
>out in the legistature.  In the former, we can look to the Supreme
>Court, and see what it has said.  Convicted felons cannot own guns,
>therefore some controls are constitutional.

Other than by rewriting the constitution (stacking the supreme court
is one way that the statists do so, BTW), the legislature has no authority
in the area of gun control.  From what I have seen, this has not stopped
them.

Convicted felons also lose most of their other rights as well: they
can no longer vote.  Their freedom of assembly is often restricted.
Etc.  This is not gun control, but a more general disenfranchisment
of persons who have demonstrated that they cannot or will not accept
the responsibilities of full citizenship: therefor they lose their
rights of citizenship (at least until such time as Hillary gets her
way).

>Now, if you said that gun control is the complete banning of all
>firearms from all private citizens, then I'd agree that goes too far.

Handgun Control, Inc. has that as their avowed purpose.  They are
the sponsors of most of the anti-gun legislation.  By stating that
you favour gun control, you are in many people's minds (mine included)
stating that you favour the complete elimination of the right of private
citizens to be able to protect themselves by the use of force.

>Is it reasonable concern of safety, since there are some (a minority,
>I'll admit) who cannot handle the responsibility of guns?  I'd say
>that's an appropriate policy.

And when these people show that they cannot handle firearms, they
lose the right to own them, along with many other freedoms.

Or at least they are supposed to.  For some reason, the judiciary
department, with assistance from the legislature, and abrogated its
responsibilities toward the punishment of criminals.

I note that many of those behind the "gun control" movement also seem
to be in favour of more lenient law enforcement, plea bargans, et
al.  This has gotten to the extent that the NRA has instituted an
organization to watch the various law enforcement and DA offices,
to try and publicize when they let serious criminals off the hook,
in hopes that *SOMETHING* can be done about the real problem.

>|> >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.

>Sounds like you're against *any* government intervention in private
>life.  OK, again, we disagree.  

I can think of no good reason why the government should be running
my private life.  After all, if is *MY* life, not theirs.  But I think
that perhaps the ideas of freedom and liberty have gone out of style.

>							But I don't think that we need to
>overthrow the USA.

I have not stated that we need to do so.  However, you might check
out the news from the (former) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
I hear that there have been some big changes recently.

>					  And it *is* the responsibilty of the police to
>protect citzens.  

Unfortunatly, the court system has determined that the police have
no such responsibilities.  

There was a case a few years ago (in New York, I think) where a woman 
heard a disturbance in the apartment below (a woman screaming), where 
a friend of hers lived.  She called the police.  A while later, she 
heard a new disturbance down there.  She assumed that it was the police, 
and went to talk to them -- she was wrong.  

It turns out that two people had entered her friend's apartment
and had beaten and raped her.  Her friend finally passed out.  The
lady who called the police was then captured by these people, and
the two woman were beaten and raped for three days.  Finally, their
attackers got bored and left.  She sued the police department for
not coming / not protecting the two of them.  She lost.  The determination
was that the police have no responsibility to protect citizens.

When you think about it, they really cannot.  Unless the officer happens
to be in the store / alley / garage / etc. when you are attacked,
they cannot protect you.  In the final analysis, there is only one
person who can take that responsibility.

>|> 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.
>
>I have, and I disagree.  Reducing the right to bear arms is an
>appropriate response to needless slaughter and waste of human life.

Nice try.  However, the facts to not support your oppinion.  When
Washington DC, and New York outlawed handguns the crime rates rose -- 
dramatically.  They have MUCH higher crime rates that other cities that 
have no such laws.  But don't take my word for it: dig up some old
alminacs.

+C


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

In two years, will you be willing to admit who you voted for 
this year?  Think about it.
Xref: sparky ne.politics:2232 alt.politics.clinton:3915 alt.politics.bush:3945 talk.politics.misc:43498