[OT] Clinton Assault Weapon Ban Ending - was -RE:gmailinitiations

[David H. Askew]

... i couldn't resist

I think most people would agree that, despite the unparralleled intelligence 
of the framers, the Constitution is a document of limited wording, and that 
it has been utilized by the Supreme Court as a basis for many decisions that 
the framers never envisioned.  While I would agree that, under a free 
society, gun-control of any kind is a threat to my liberty, I would also 
agree, that we need to have a good balance between personal freedom and 
national security.

If you take the constitution at its face value, the the framers envisioned 
that every man should be allowed to own a single shot, barrel-loading, 
musket.  If you really wanted to look into the spirit of the law, then the 
framers intended us all to be able to own any guns we should deem necessary 
to the protection of our liberty.  Having said that, where does it stop?  Do 
we really want every tom, dick, and harry building low grade nuclear weapons 
in the face ot tirany ? Of course we don't.  Allowing citizens to possess 
WMDs would'nt be very smart, so we have come to an agreement that this isn't 
very reasonable.  National interest vs. personal freedom, thats what I'm 
getting at here.  Our constitution was never setup to provide all the 
freedoms we think we should enjoy, but rather to protect a few basic ones.  
We live in a society that is more free than most, not "a free society".

It all comes down to this:
 
- the framers intended on us being well armed.
- the framers had no idea of the kind of weapons we would create.
- the framers never invisioned the violent society we live in (gloabal and 
domestic)

I for one, support the ban of assault weapons, but then again I have a 
reasonably tough time legitamizing the value of owning such weapons, in light 
of the domestic and global threats we face.   If we live in a society that 
makes people think that they really "need" an assault weapon, then freedom 
has long since left the building and we might as well all move to Israel.

I think its funny that the Democrats support every ammendment but the second, 
and the Republicans only support the second one.

my .02

dave

On Friday 10 September 2004 8:34 pm, James R. Sissel wrote:
> I must wade into this one finally.  This point isn't made often enough. 
> The right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, sport, or
> keeping the muggers at bay.  The framers of our Consititution understood
> that everything, even the great ideas they were working on, can be
> corrupted.  It makes no difference if they forsaw the automatic weapons we
> have today or Star Trek phasers.  Nor do they care if we are using pea
> shooters.  The right to bear ARMS, note not guns, is a basic right.  Here
> is the exact wording of the Second Ammendment:
>
>  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.
>
> The fathers of our country understood that the final authority of
> government is the people.  And at times there might be the possiblity that
> the government is working against the people.  If that should happen and
> the people believe the only recourse is to overthrow the government then
> they have the right to do so.  Therefore the right to bear arms is the
> ultimate balance of power of the people against the government.
>
> I believe that any gun control law, any registration, any infringement on
> my right to bear arms is a threat to my freedom.
>
> Saying that, I also believe that if a weapon of violence is used in a crime
> the criminal should be put away for a *very* long time.
> _______________________________________________
> Kclug mailing list
> Kclug at kclug.org
> http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug