Guns & the Bill of Rights

[Steve]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn Cawte" <kcawte at b...>
wrote:
>  bboy_mn
> 
>  
> In addition, if anyone would like to start arguing the 
> Constitutional issues related to guns, I'm primed and ready for 
> that. Sadly, very few people understand the Bill of Right in even 
> the most basic and fundimental way.
>  
> 
>  Me -
> 
> Well I was taught that there is doubt about exactly what the writers
> meant when they said 'right to bear arms' anyway, but I don't know 
> if that's right.

bboy_mn:
Well, people today have doubts about the right to keep and bear arms,
but the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they
wrote the Bill of Rights, and those reasons are just as valid if not
more valid today than they were back then. I think there is a greater
likelihood today for what they were guarding against to occur.

> ... was written the US was still a frontier country with no police 
> force or real standing army .
> 

It has nothing to do with the frontier, nothing to do with the police
in the sense that you are implying, and only a limited amount to do
with a standing army, but probably not in the way you might think.

> Guns were needed for hunting for food,

Nothing to do with hunting food.

> protection from wild animals and protection from/apprehending 
> bandits/Native Americans/anyone else that was considered a threat. 
>

Nothing to do with wild animals, bandits, indians, but something to do
with a very specific 'other' threat.

>
> ...edited...
>

> 
> What may have been reasonable when it was written is not reasonable
> now. 

As I said before, it is more relevant and reasonable now than it was then.

> The Constitution is ammended all the time - what makes this 
> particular part of it any more sacred than the rest. 

But you must realize that there is a significant difference between
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.


> There is already some element of gun control I believe - not all 
> makes of gun are legal to own. 

The primary limitation on guns is on fully automatic machine guns, the
favorite of the time being the Thompson Sub-Machine Gun which in one
form has a 300 round magazine. These guns were outlawed in the 30's in
an effort to bring bootlegging gangs undercontrol.


> While I have no problem with hunting rifles ...
>
> ...edited..
> 
> K


Again the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with hunting, that's one of
the greatest misconception in existance. You can't imagine how much I
cringe when I hear talking heads (news reporters) say something to the
effect that you don't need a military rifle to hunt deer. Once again,
again, the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting;
never has, never will.

Now let's skip the point to point comments and get right to the heart
of that matter.

I'm guessing most of what I said above makes no logical sense, so I
think it's time for a history lesson.

The Bill of Rights was added about 15 years after the Constitution was
first signed (Dec 15, 1791). So what happened in that 15 years that
made them think that they needed more?

The American Continental Congress did an excellent job of outlining a
government that was new, modern, and unprecidented in the history of
the world. A Elected Democratic Republic with a build in system of
checks and balances. Each branch of government had some authority to
override or control the other branches, but because the other branches
have their own ability to override and control, we had a built-in
guarantee (of sorts) that no branch can get out of control and
unfairly dominate the government, and there by dominate the people.

That sounds like a pretty good deal. How much more could you ask for
in a government? (more on that later)

What are the branches of government as defined by the Constitution of
the United States? Come on now, every citizen of the US should know
this without even having to pause and think. 

Perhaps a better question will help us out. How many branches of
government are there? Don't bother, I'll save you the time, and tell
you that there are FOUR. 

So, what are the four branches of government? I'll save you some time
again, and give you three of them; congressional, judicial, and
executive (Congress, Supreme Court, Office of the President). I gave
you those because they are the easy ones.

The fourth branch is the branch that is defined by the Bill of Rights.
Our founding fathers realized that they forgot to empower the most
important branch of government; they forgot the most critical and
crucial check and balance of all. They forgot to give the people the
ultimate power to control ALL branches of government under any and all
circumstances. 

Now we are to the heart of the matter. To assure that the US
government could never ever under any circumstances have more power
than the people themselves, the founders created the Bill of Rights.
To assure that if the branches of government consciously or
unconsciously conspired to gain the ultimate power to oppress their
own people, the people would have a master list of items to weigh the
governments actions against. Violation of this master list would be
the people's sign that the government was being corrupted by it's own
power. Think Fudge and Umbridge, especially Umbridge, weigh Umbridge's
actions against the master list in the Bill of Rights.

The Master list, also known as the Bill of Rights, is the master list
of all the ways all governments from the beginning of time until this
very day and on into the near infinite foreseeable future have used to
oppress and control their own citizens.

Do you think the people living in Iraq under Susdam Hussian had the
right to keep and bear arms, the right to freedom of the press, free
assembly, protection against self-incrimination, the right to a fair
and speedy trial, the protection against unreasonable search and
seizures, the right to a free press, a jury trial, etc...? Of course,
they didn't because these are the very things that every oppressive
dictator STOPS as soon as he gains control because it is the only way
he can maintain control. Dictators do not do well against a free,
empowered and powerful people. Do think the Cambodians living under
Pol Pot had any of these rights? ...Iatola Komani in Iran? ...Idi Amin
Dada in Ugandan? ...Hitler in Germany? ...Afghanistan. No, they had
none of these rights.

The day you give up any one of the items on this master list is the
day you give up your ability to insure your own continued liberty.

Why am I allowed to have a gun? Because as long as I do, I have power
over my government, as long as I do, my government needs to be afraid
of me. When we lose the power to control our own government, we lose
everything. Of course, those who so willingly trade away their freedom
for a false sense of security, will tell you that the government is on
our side, so why do we need to protect ourselves from them? Oddly, the
Germans felt the same way about Hitler when he first came to power; he
was on their side until he killed a few million of them and plunged
them into a bloody world war. Pol Pot promised to take Cambodia into
an new era of enlightenment then proceeded to kill half the
population. The list of murderous dictators who abolished the Master
List of Freedoms and **Inalienable** Rights is endless, and it
stretches forward and backwards through time; many have been and many
more will be. To quote a great statesman and soldier; "CONSTANT
VIGILANCE".

The day I give up my gun, is the day I give up my liberty, and the day
I give up my gun, is the day you pry it from my cold dead hands.
Better to die for Liberty than to live in tyranny.

Those who trade their freedom for security, ultimately, will have 
neither. (quote: Ben Franklin, Theodore Roosevelt, and many more great
men)

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms-
"II. 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 Bill of Rights-
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/bill_of_rights.html

More of my thought on this subject-
http://www.homestead.com/asian_lovr/files/issues/guns.html
Warning: This page is 'G' rate, but, unless you are of a liberal mind
that doesn't mind content of a more extreme rating, I suggest you do
not stray from this page. (But you would see a picture of me it you
did, also 'G' rated.)

I could go on and on, and trust me, as long as this post is, it is
nothing compared to the 'on and on' I could go. 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

bboy_mn