home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   alt.conspiracy.america-at-war      Debating how war is good for business      4,706 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 3,834 of 4,706   
   Scout to All   
   Re: Handgun ban in U.S. capital could re   
   15 Sep 07 12:42:22   
   
   XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Leif"  wrote in message   
   news:1189828478.007388.205980@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Sep 14, 3:14 am, oldpink  wrote:   
   >> Leif wrote:   
   >>   
   >> [...]   
   >>   
   >> >>>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..."   
   >>   
   >> >>Arms are effects. So it is already included. Thus by your argument the   
   >> >>Framers protected the personal arms rights of individuals in the 4th   
   >> >>Amendment.- Hide quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> >>- Show quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> > Leif speaking:  What definition do you use that says that arms are   
   >> > "effects" but that houses and papers are not?   
   >>   
   >> God damn! but if you aren't a pinhead!   
   >> In your world, what's up is down, and what's right is left.   
   >>   
   >> "WordNet (r) 2.0"   
   >> effects   
   >>       n : property of a personal character that is portable but not   
   >>           used in business; "she left some of her personal effects   
   >>           in the house"; "I watched over their effects until they   
   >>           returned" syn: personal effects   
   >>   
   >> --   
   >> And what exactly is a joke?   
   >   
   > Leif speaking:  Papers are certainly portable, and those held by   
   > individuals are not normally papers being used in a business.   
      
   And those that are would certainly be papers and not effects.   
      
      
   > If they   
   > qualified for a separate listing in the 4th Amendment, "arms" also   
   > could have done so -- if the Framers had thought it necessary to   
   > protect personal arms from federal intrusion.   
      
   However, failing to do so doesn't prove your point since guns are still   
   effects and thus protected.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca