In article , George Cleveland
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:37:35 GMT, (Joe Ellis)
wrote:

In article , Svend Tang-Petersen
wrote:

Why do you need a semi or full automatic gun to go hunting ? Are you a
bad shot or just too lazy to reload ?

When was the last time you READ the Second Amendment?

Actually I just read it today. It said nothing about hunting or even
about individual ownership.

Yes and no. True, it does not mention "hunting". It doesn't need to,
because it does not specify the USES of the weapons, and when it says:
"The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", it
makes a very clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous statement specifically
about individual ownership.

I'm all for an amendment that would
guarantee hunters and others the right to own arms. But the 2nd
Amendment is not about that. Its about the need to keep military power
out of the hands of a standing army and in the hands of well regulated
citizen militias. You doubt me? Show me one court case that interprets
the 2nd Amendment as the right of individuals to keep and own firearms
for personal use. I can show you many that say that it doesn't. All
the way up to the Supreme Court. The NRA has let all gun owners down
by not pushing for a Constitutional amendment to guarantee that right
but they'd rather play right-wing-spin-politics than do something
meaningful.

Of course, a reading of the Second Amendment shows those court rulings are
quite simply wrong.

My son is studying "dependant and independant clauses" right now in
English class. The Second Amendment is a classic example, and when
analyzed according to the actual structure, is crystal clear: "The right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't
give ANY exceptions, no room for weasling around. It is quite possibly the
single least ambiguous statement in the entire Constitution. It DOES give
a reason. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State...". The Founding Fathers knew EXACTLY what they were saying.
They were putting enough power in the hands of the People to overthrow the
government - AGAIN - if enough of them found it necessary.

If you were going to a big rock concert and saw a sign outside the arena
that said:

"To keep order in line, and for your safety, everyone will be seated
strictly in the order of arrival, without exception.", there would be no
question about the meaning. The Second Amendment has exactly the same
sentence structure, and is equally clear. It's only the courts that can't
seem to understand plain English.

Of course, I think that anyone that used their weapon against the peace or
others without clear and just cause should also be held strictly and
personally responsible, as well. I don't have any problem at all with
severe penalties for anyone using a gun in a crime. With great freedoms
come great responsibilities.

--

Joe Ellis