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:1189917643.223859.172140@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Sep 15, 4:42 am, "Scout"   
   >  wrote:   
   >> "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.- Hide quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> - Show quoted text -   
   >   
   > Leif speaking:  If personal guns are protected as "effects" under the   
   > 4th Amendment,   
      
   Which has already been established since guns are by definition within the   
   nature of "effects".   
      
   > then there is really no need to give them protection   
   > again under the 2nd Amendment   
      
   Sure there is, because people like you want to claim they aren't protected   
   anywhere. So they are protected against legislative measures, and then   
   protected again against unreasonable search and seizure. Seems the FF wanted   
   to make really, really, sure that guns were protected, by YOUR OWN   
   ARGUEMENT.   
      
      
   > -- and of course the the Framers   
   > didn't.  The 2nd Amendment protects the people as a well regulated   
   > militia.   
      
   Sorry, I fail to see any reference to "as a well regulated militia" in the   
   2nd. The 2nd simply refers to "the right of the people" without any   
   qualifiers or modifiers on "the people". Please indicate the grammatical   
   construction of the 2nd that places the qualifier or modifier you claim on   
   the noun "people".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)