GUNS: Re: Why Here?

From: Joe Dees (joedees@addall.com)
Date: Thu Sep 21 2000 - 20:38:52 MDT

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) >Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com>
>To: extropians@extropy.org
>Subject: GUNS: Re: Why Here?
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>
>
>From: "Joe Dees" <joedees@addall.com>
>
>>The full text of the 2nd amendment:
>
>>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.
>
>>As is blindingly obvious, well-regulated militias and the
>>dependence of the security of free states upon them are the
>>reasons given, WITHIN THE 1791 AMENDMENT ITSELF, for preserving
>>the right to keep and bear arms.
>
>
>There is a word for what your trying to pull here, how ironic that
>it is today's AWAD.
>
>
>>eisegesis (eye-si-JEE-sis) noun, plural eisegeses (-seez)
>
>>An interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the
>>interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the
>>meaning of the text.
>
>>[From Greek eisegesis, equivalent to eis- into + (h)ege- (stem of
>>hegeisthai to lead) + -sis.]
>
>>"It should be noted that the Tenth Amendment does not say that
>>powers not explicitly delegated to the United States are reserved
>>to the states, even though the Supreme Court, in a startling
>>example of eisegesis, once read the word explicitly into the text
>>of the Tenth Amendment.
>> John A. Rohr, Public administration and comparative
>>constitutionalism, Public Administration Review, Jul 8, 1997.
>
>>This week's theme: words about words.
>
>>The big thieves hang the little ones. -Czech proverb
>
>The fact of the matter is that we have all of the related writings
>from the founding fathers who wrote the 2nd Amendment including
>Jefferson, who did in fact re-write it.
>
>We know exactly what they meant, which is completely different from
>the way you are trying to interpret it. The intent was always that
>individual citizens were to be armed.
>
>The last time the anti-gun faction tried this ploy, they
>inadvertantly started the militia movement.
>
>
>>But the loopholes in the laws could accommodate Mack trucks,
>>certainly MAC-10's (previously purchased, or imported, assault
>>weapons and clips were grandfathered in). The flea market and gun
>>show loophole allows felons to purchase, and the 25% of dealers
>>there who are private have no checking requirements on them. And
>>about that
>>I'm-a-collector-who-buys-a-thousand-of-the-same-model-each-week
>>private citizen loophole - guess how the weapons find themselves
>>into black markets?
>
>No matter how many laws above the existing 20,000+ gun laws you
>create, there will always be loopholes. Or as is more likely the
>perpetrators of the crime will simply ignore them all together.
>
>Thats what criminals do Joe, they ignore laws they don't like.
>
>>I've suggested others that would have more effect, and the NICS
>>checks will have more effect once more of the relevant records are
>>computerized, which is NOT the case presently.
>
>No amount of gun laws will ever accomplish what you have in mind,
>that's the whole point.
>
>Registration is just a stepping stone to confiscation, even the 65
>to 80 million gun owners who are not members of the NRA know that.
>
>I've a better idea for a law, how about a law that says only NRA
>members can own guns? (kidding for the satirically impaired.)
>
>The only thing blindingly obvious is that you will never be happy
>till you get your way.
>
>And I won't need to post this twice to try and make my point.
>
>In fact it's time to try and retire this thread again.
>
Whyncha come clean and publicly admit what you, as an NRA member, must already know - that the emotional appeals to the second half of the second amendment are meant to inflame the faithful, but not to convince the courts? You know full well that the NRA has never contested a gun regulation on second amendment grounds - because they know that it's a losing judicial argument, since the courts will not recognize your organization's particular eisegesis as either relevant or valid.
>
>Brian
>
>Member:
>Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
>Adler Planetarium www.adlerplanetarium.org
>Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
>National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
>Mars Society, www.marssociety.org
>Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W

------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:06 MST