🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1nvm1rINN4fo@access.digex.com> kenmayer@access.digex.com 
(Ken Mayer) writes:
>	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.
>
>My interpretation of this has always been a little narrow.
>Grammatically, a comma can denote a parenthetical statement or phrase.
>Applying that to the second amendment you get:
>
>	 A well regulated Militia, ..., shall not be infringed.

Nope.

1. The US Supreme Court decided in 1990's US v. Verdugo-Urquidez case
   that the "people" mentioned in the Second Amendment were the same
   people mentioned in the 1st, 4th, etc. Amendments.
2. Roy Copperud, a USC journalism teacher, panel member for The American 
   Heritage Dictionary and Webster's Usage Dictionary and author of
   "American Usage and Style: The Consensus" has said that the Second
   Amendment does NOT restrict that right to the militia.

If the 2nd Amendment doesn't give us all the right to keep and bear arms,
then why is there a bill to abolish it in Congres again, this year?

>That being said, I've always wondered why there is such a strong
>opposition to the control of such hazardous material. BATF has
>licensing requirements on the use high explosives, which could be
>construed as a necessary firearm for a Militia, without major
>objections from the chemicals industry. Why can't I, Joe Citizen, keep
>my own personal cache of C-4 just in case I am called to defend my
>country against an enemy? Because C-4 is just too dangerous to be left
>lying around. I think the same should go for firearms.

Nonsense.  Explosives can not be used with fine enough control for
self defense purposes.

I think that a great deal of the resistance of gun owners to further
legislation is because:
  1. Their trust has been abused before
  2. They (we) resent the implication that we are a danger to society
     and should therefore give up our rights.

>IMHO, guns should be regulated. Anyone who owns a gun should be able
>to prove that he or she 1) knows how to use it properly, 

The number of accidents in 1990 was half of what it was in 1970.  I don't
think that accidents are the problem...

2) will use it for solely legitimate purposes, and 3) will not allow it to 
>be used in an unsafe manner by any other person. This is not unreasonable.

But it is impossible.  How can I prove my intentions?  And, given that I've
never attacked or hurt anyone in my life, shouldn't I be innocent until
proven guilty?

   don