XPost: uk.politics.misc, uk.politics.guns, can.talk.guns   
   XPost: aus.politics.guns, aus.politics, can.politics   
   XPost: can.general, soc.culture.canada   
   From: donlhumphries@bigpond.com   
      
   "Sarah Houston"  wrote in message   
   news:Xns9AFD914C6B496SntzldfrdSntzldfrdco@216.196.97.142...   
   > Regulating A Basic Right:   
   >   
   > The recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller vs.   
   > District of Columbia was greeted with over whelming joy. Women fainted   
   > and grown men cried for what seemed to be a vindication of the 2nd.   
   > amendment, the right to bear arms was now a non-assailable right an   
   > individual right. Unfortunately the old men and women in their black   
   > robes hastened to add that it is subject to practically any   
   > "reasonable" regulation that our politicians and bureaucrats might want   
   > to impose on it. This is nothing to celebrate about. Soon after the   
   > passage of this law the Mayor and City Council of DC passed "The   
   > Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act"(reasonable regulation). This   
   > Act continues to prohibits the ownership of firearms for the protection   
   > of an individual in their home. For all those individuals who see the   
   > 2nd. amendment as a God given right to bear arms and as a right of the   
   > citizen to protect themselves, and from an overbearing government we   
   > have   
   >  politicians thumbing their nose at it. With the first appearance of   
   >  man on this   
   > earth, millions of years ago individual human beings had the right to   
   > live and fight to to stay alive. This basic right pre-dates the   
   > Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights. It is a part of man and can   
   > not be given or taken away it is inherent in man as is his human soul.   
   > The individual right to have and carry a weapon be it a stick, stone   
   > hammer, sword, knife, bow and arrow or gun. It is as logical and   
   > necessary extension of the right to live, as is the air we breath . Yet   
   > in today's federal, state and local governments these forces will   
   > insist that they can take better care of you than you can. These same   
   > forces insist that they can spend your money, educate your children and   
   > advise whats best for you and your family. We all know how that   
   > thinking has played out. For example right after the civil war southern   
   > states passed restrictive gun laws. The fear that newly   
   >  freed slaves would arm themselves and the new establishment would lose   
   >  control.   
   > Laws restricting black ownership of weapons were passed and for one   
   > reason only, control. With the coming of the cheap and affordable   
   > "Saturday Night Specials" high taxes were imposed. Once again to this   
   > very day the poor can not pay for their protection. Is it any wonder   
   > that black areas in DC, Chicago, and New York suffer from high crime   
   > rates because the laws prohibiting the ownership of a gun. How can the   
   > government legally or logically be permitted to "regulate" - meaning to   
   > control the exercise of the basic right of man to protect his life.   
   > Should we not all be afforded the right to defend ourselves from the   
   > thugs, rapists, muggers and thieves. The courts "reasonable regulation"   
   > flies in The face of the Second Amendment. Domesticate the wolf and   
   > regulate him and he changes both physically and mentally. His muzzle   
   > shrinks, his teeth diminish, he loses size, speed and   
   >  strength. He grows spots and his ears flop. his brain withers. He   
   >  becomes a   
   > dog.   
   >   
   > Men are on the verge of becoming a species of domesticated dog.   
   > Are we going to resist it or will we permit the government to   
   > domesticate us. In a world of despots and tyrant's all who seem to rise   
   > from time to time from human garbage of the mind, the likes of Lennin,   
   > Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot should not anyone who wants to be armed   
   > have that basic right. The United Nations along with friends like   
   > Pelosi, Schummer, Feinstein, McCarthy, Soros and sorry to say even   
   > Obama in their ill conceived attempts to disarm everyone are striving   
   > whether they know it or not in making the next holocaust possible.   
      
   #  I'd be interested to know if the Constitution of any other nation, other   
   than USA, has a similar gun-toting clause?   
      The preamble to the Second Amendment makes it plain why a US citizen has   
   the right to bear arms - it is for defence of the nation against foreign   
   intruders, as, eg. the British red-coats during the War of Independence.   
      That US citizens might need weapons to defend themselves against each   
   other says a lot for the social malaise in the USA - possibly one reason why   
   "change" is so vehemently advocated in the Presidential race.   
      However, I agree with you that the present legal situation is   
   contradictory - unless those entitled to bear arms also join the National   
   Guard.   
      The Police Force is the delegated law-enforcement agency in most nations,   
   but self-defence in one's own home can be done with kitchen knife, baseball   
   bat, etc.  If there is a ban on guns, this also makes them inaccessible to   
   criminals, or should do so.   
      But you might need guns to defend yourself against the govt itself?   
   What, in the most democratic nation on Earth?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)