XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: bert@iphouse.com   
      
   leifrakur2@hotmail.com (Leif) wrote in   
   news:1189708248.058192.141580@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:   
      
   > If the Framers had thought it necessary to protect the personal   
   > arms rights of individuals, it would simply have added the word   
   > "arms" to the 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure   
   > in their persons, houses, ARMS, papers, and effects..."   
      
   You're suggesting that "arms", as in personally owned firearms, are   
   somehow excluded the protections of the 4th and 5th amendments? What   
   other items of personal property aren't protected because they're not   
   singled out? TVs? Dishwashers?   
      
   It looks like Hamilton had people like you in mind when he wrote in   
   Federalist 84:   
      
           But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far   
           less applicable to a constitution like that under   
           consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the   
           general political interests of the nation, than to a   
           constitution which has the regulation of every species of   
           personal and private concerns. ...   
      
           I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense   
           and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not   
           only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even   
           be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers   
           which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford   
           a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why   
           declare that things shall not be done which there is no power   
           to do?   
      
   --   
   Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)