XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.politics, alt.politics.bush   
   XPost: alt.politics.democrats   
   From: tgm3@verizon.net   
      
   In article ,   
   hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net says...   
   >   
   >   
   >In article , tgm    
   >wrote:   
   >   
   >> Can't speak for the ACLU but my in my view it is an obsolete and ineffective   
   >> Amendment bearing much in common with the 3rd Amendment.   
   >>   
   >> For the purpose of this discussion let's assume the right is a personal   
   right   
   >> and not limited to State run Militias.   
   >   
   >That's not the stated position of the ACLU.  ACLU says it's a right   
   >pertaining to the States.  They're concerned with individual rights,   
   >not States' rights.  In fact, they consider States the other thing   
   >besides the Federal government that's most prone to infringe the rights   
   >they are dedicated to protecting.   
      
   That too, is my position but is unnecessary to show how the amendment is   
   obsolete.   
      
   >> It was still designed to allow people the right to defend their liberty.   
   >> When  muskets and long rifles were the mainstays of even the most advanced   
   Armys of   
   >> the world, such an amendment made sense.   
   >>   
   >> Today where F-22s, M-1 Abrahms tanks and nuclear powered aircraft carriers   
   >> control the land, the air and the sea, our little pea shooters are pretty   
   >> much of a joke.  Hell, we can't even readily make IEDs.   
   >>   
   >> Taking another tack, let's read hunting into the Amendment and claim that   
   the   
   >> right to bear arms was necessary so people could hunt and feed their family.   
   >   
   >That's a lot of reading in.  There's nothing in the Amendment to suggest   
   >any such thing, under any conceivable interpretation of the words.   
      
   The gun nuts will use any argument they can come up with.  Needing weapons for   
   hunting is one of their favorites.  I know it's not in the constitution but   
   being so easily refuted, I just couldn't resist.   
      
   >> Well in case you hadn't noticed, there are supermarkets in most every   
   >> community and the people who take guns to the supermarkets are not hunting   
   >> for food.   
   >>   
   >> Just as there are no soldiers being quartered in our homes neither can our   
   >> non-automatic weapons do anything to protect our freedoms.   
   >   
   >There were soldiers quartered in homes during and after the Civil War.   
      
   That was then, this is now.  No need to quibble about when the Amendments   
   became   
   obsolete, the mere fact that they are is sufficient.   
      
   >> Why spend time and money on an obsolete Amendment when the Government is   
   >> trying  to infringe on many other of our Constitutional rights.   
      
   Tom   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)