From: Ryan M Gill (rmgill@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Sep 23 2002 - 09:29:29 PDT
At 9:38 PM -0700 9/22/02, Paul A. Thomas wrote:
> Someone has to decide that, along with every other 'right'
>that comes up. There are people who feel it is their right to carry
>a concealed desert eagle in their trousers. I have no real interest
>in having to carry firearms to do my grocery shopping, so believe
>Someone should decide.
The argument here is does one have the right to self defense in
public or private? The police have already been excused from not
being there to protect individuals. So, where does that leave the
individual? Its up to you to defend yourself. The courts have
established that. That basic principle is what is behind the
challenge to the Concealed Carry fight in Ohio. The Pizza delivery
man's case was a perfect argument for carrying concealed being legal.
As to firearms rights, the constitution explicitly names rights
(1st-8th amendments and implicitly names them (9th and 10th
amendments). You should go over those rights. Cross reference them
with cases on the net. Might I suggest going over to the ACLU and the
EFF as well as the SAF for a bit of reading? Their websites list a
number of cases.
> Do I leave it to the voters? As I live in California, where
>fruits and nuts grow wild... I'm not really enthusiastic about that
>choice. Do I leave it to organized crime?
There's more than just the voters. We have a 3 part government.
Executive, Legislative, Judicial. If the first two fail, you go to
the third. Generally the system works. It does so far better here
than it does elsewhere.
> IMSHO 'Rights' are what you/we can take or can get. Go to
>Any other country and your 'rights' change. Rights are not written
>in stone ( which is good: they can change with the
Paul, the basic tenant of republican thought (not the party) is that
rights are naturally occurring. They can be denied by a government,
but they exist none the less. Denying them in some cases is seen as a
necessary requirement for societies to function. The question that
many people in the US should argue about is not if the rights exist,
but where the limitations on those rights exist.
I rather think you've become jaded sir. You need to pick up some
reading material and re-enforce your American ideals.
Where does this all fit into MVs? Well, one could make the argument
based on 2nd amendment clauses that MVs are legal to own and that one
does in fact have right to own them if lawfully acquired. You might
not have the right to drive it on the street, but nothing should stop
you from driving your re-built M113 on your private property.
Now, whether the feds go along with that is another thing entirely.
Congress likes to invoke the butterfly principle when it comes to the
commerce clause regulations. Holding the Feds up to their limits is
something that more states and individuals need to do. Frankly
California needs to tell the Feds to take a hike when it comes to
their two most recent issues with medical drugs (Medical pot) and
with stem cell research. If the stuff doesn't cross state lines its
not the Fed's business.
-- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- - Ryan Montieth Gill '01 Honda Insight - - rmgill@SPAmindspring.com '85 CB700S - - ryan.gill@SPAMturner.com '76 Chevy Monte Carlo - - www.mindspring.com/~rmgill '72 Honda CB750 - - '60 Daimler FV701H Mk2/3 - - '42 Daimler Scout Car Mk II - - I speak not for CNN, nor they for me - ---------------------------------------------------------------- - The director of Home Security encourages you to - - turn in your neighbor & spy on your friends. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- - C&R-FFL / Protect your electronic rights! \ EFF-ACLU - - SAF & NRA/ Join the EFF! http://www.eff.org/ \ DoD #0780 - ----------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 13:21:24 PDT