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

[L. Adrian Griffis]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004, David H. Askew wrote:
> ... 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.

Would you at least agree that, a rational basis and a compelling 
government interest test should be passed before gun control
laws could stand?  Would you at least agree that the second
amendment should be treated like the first?

> 
> 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.

That's absolutely wrong.  There were more sophisticated weapons availible
at the time.  And there's no reason to think that the framers wanted
the weapons we might have a right to own be frozen in time, like that.
It might be more reasonable to assume that the framers wanted ordinary
citizens to possess those weapons that a common soldier might carry.

> 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.

The assault weapon's ban would pass neither a rational basis test nor a
complelling government intrest test, and it certainly wouldn't hold up
to anything like the scrutiny used to defend the first amendment.

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

I agree.  We should support them all.

Adrian