On 13 May 2005 07:43:47 -0700, jlichterm@yahoo.com enraptured with the Election of Cardinal Ratchaser decided to post the following:
Colin Kynoch wrote:>> On 12 May 2005 21:44:23 -0700, jlichterm@yahoo.com enraptured with>the>> Election of Cardinal Ratchaser decided to post the following:>>
Well your average American has an intelligence level sufficient>only>> >> to ask the question "would you like fries with that?" You are>> >talking>> >> about a country that has been suckered by the NRA into believing>that>> >> they have a constitutional right to own firearms.>> >
Uhm, after a fairly decent post, where you invite the previous>poster>> >to actually read the CoC, you post this gratuitous slam of all>> >Americans.>> >
I might suggest YOU actually read the US Constitution.>Specifically,>> >the Second Amendment, titled: "Right to bear arms.">> >"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.">> >
Whatever one might think the Second Amendment, only a sucker could>> >believe that meant the citizens of the country have a constitutional>> >right to own firearms, I suppose. Right?>>
I will leave it up to the US Supreme Court.>>
It held in its 1939 United States v. Miller decision that individuals>> have in effect no right to keep and bear arms under the amendment,>but>> only a collective right having "some reasonable relationship to the>> preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." Lower courts>> have consistently applied the Miller decision in upholding various>> gun-control laws over the years.>>
The Supreme Court most recently revisited this question in 1980, when>> it reconfirmed that "these legislative restrictions on the use of>> firearms do not trench upon any constitutionally protected>liberties.">> One significant part of that case is that then Chief Justice Burger>> and current Chief Justice Rehnquist both supported that>> interpretation. Burger has denounced the NRA's edited version of the>> amendment as a "fraud.">>
This doesn't stop numerous fruit loops, Charlton Heston chief amongst>> them claiming it is every Yanks right to bear arms.>
Colin, the point is that its not being suckered to read the Second>Amendment to mean that every citizen has the right to own arms. Just>because you disagree with that interpretation, that doesnt mean its an>outrageous interpretation - in fact, reading the plain text of the>Amendment, its a pretty reasonable interpretation.
It isn't if you read the lot.
It has been the NRA with its insidious hi-jacking and fraudulent editing that has hoodwinked the majority of Americans.
As for the US Supreme Court, they have never said citizens have no>right to bear arms. What they have said is that it is ok to impose>legislative restrictions because the right embodied in the Second>Amendment is a "fundamental" one like the right to free speech.>
Anyway, the Supreme Court says a lot of things - doesnt make them>objectively right, only the state of law at a given point in time.>Cases in point include Roe v. Wade (which is still the most hotly>debated US Supreme Court decision, since it invented a new right never>mentioned in the Constitution) and Bowers v. Hardwick, which the US>Supreme Court overturned itself.
Courts make more law that legislators. And Courts can overturn their previous decisions. the US Supreme court has not altered its position on the interpretation of the Second Amendment in over 125 years.
Fun as this is, we should probably stick to the cricket here before we>get slammed again. Kudos to you on a post that finally dragged me back>in here for more than a perfunctory response. Dammit.
