Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:43:42 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: cjclark@home.com Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (Mark Ovens), noslenj@swbell.net (Jay Nelson), freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Guns and freedom [Was: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD"] Message-ID: <200003290343.UAA29263@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <20000327221634.A11538@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> from "Crist J. Clark" at Mar 27, 2000 10:16:34 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 12:35:20AM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:
> [snip]
> > > One of the things the Founding Fathers
> > > did get right (even if some ammendments about bearing arms were
> > > written too vaguely), give Congress the purse strings.
> >
> > I don't find it vague:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Even putting aside the tyrrany argument about "regulate", and
> > whether the militia should be accountable to an ideal or to a
> > government, regardless if that government becomes an oppressive
> > regime... "shall not be infringed" is pretty unambiguous.
>
> Not so fast, you say it yourself. It says that the right to bear arms
> in order to sustain a well regulated malitia will not be infringed. To
> a certain extent, the militias of that era are what we would consider
> the National Guard now-a-days.
First of all, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms, shall not be infringed.", not "the right of militia members
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Second, you need to look in a circa 1770's English dictionary
for the word "regulated". It didn't mean then what it does now.
> Even if you won't read it in that sense, it by no means says, "the
> right of anyone to keep and bear any darn weapon they could ever
> want." Personally, if you have not picked it up yet, I'm all for
> people bearing rifles, shotguns, and "sport" weapons, but handguns,
> assault weapons, etc. really serve no legitimate purpose in society at
> large and there is no reason that they cannot be tightly regulated.
Certainly there's no _technical_ reason they can't. The means
for regulation, in the modern sense of the word, do exist.
On the other hand, if Janet Reno drives up to my door in an
M-1 Abrhams Main Battle Tank, I would feel a tad justified in
owning an "assault weapon" ("a threatening weapon").
> Rights in the amendments aren't absolute. We have free speech and
> press, but you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nor is
> slander in speech or writing protected. They all have limits that
> can and should be imposed by the legislative and judicial branches.
Actually, no they don't. The "``fire!'' in a crowded theater" has
more to do with the results than the act. The U.S. Constitution
does not _grant_ rights, it _acknowledges_ rights. People who
think that the rights are _granted_ by the Constitution need to
look up the word "inalienable".
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200003290343.UAA29263>