Re: Gun Control means Crime Control

On 12/6/22 10:12 AM, Matt Singer wrote:
> On 12/6/2022 4:30 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "max headroom" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> In news:[email protected], !Jones <[email protected]> 
>>> typed:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 09:14:53 -0800, in talk.politics.guns Paul Jackson
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There was no Democratic party in 1789, o oozing scarlet red maxipad.
>>>
>>>>> Today, maxipad, as you well know - because I have instructed you on 
>>>>> the
>>>>> point - it is the Republiscum/QAnon party that is the party of white
>>>>> supremacy and oppression of blacks.
>>>
>>>> The best support for your position is found in here:
>>>
>>>> Virginia. Convention (1788)., Robertson, D., United States. (1805).
>>>> Debates and other proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,: convened
>>>> at Richmond, on Monday the second day of June, 1788, for the purpose
>>>> of deliberating on the Constitution recommended by the grand Federal
>>>> Convention. : To which is prefixed the Federal Constitution.. Second
>>>> edition. Richmond:: Printed at the Enquirer-Press, for Ritchie &
>>>> Worsley and Augustine Davis.
>>>
>>>> It's available online here:
>>>> https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002385106/Home
>>>
>>>> The reader will note that there were three dominant themes in the 1788
>>>> ratification debates: slavery, slavery, and slavery.  At the time, the
>>>> abolitionist movement was just beginning, but was gaining some
>>>> traction.
>>>
>>>> The best... indeed, the *only*... use for a "well regulated militia"
>>>> was to put down slave disturbances....
>>>
>>> Or to deter more British hostilities... which came about twenty years 
>>> later.
>>>
>>>> ...  As a military force more than a mile from their homes, they 
>>>> were simply
>>>> scoffed by all....
>>>
>>> A lot of rebel boys didn't scoff later.
>>>
>>>> ...There is a reason why the second amendment begins: "A well regulated
>>>> militia,..." and not, as in the first amendment: "Congress shall 
>>>> make no
>>>> law..." is because 2A is about states' rights to maintain a militia. 
>>>> Nowhere
>>>> in the ratification debates (or anyplace else) are "arms" even 
>>>> mentioned save
>>>> in the context of a militia.
>>>
>>> Was there a point in there?
>>
>> The point is simple.. even after being carefully examined, and fully 
>> explained, Rudy STILL refuses to accept the actual meaning intended 
>> and written.
> 
> The amendment, of course, does not define the right.  Justice Scalia did 
> some of that for you, and you refuse to accept it.
> 

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free 
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be 
infringed.


The Amendment defines "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" as a right NOT being 
delegated to the United States because it's a RIGHT of the people. And 
at the same time the Amendment same clause defines "THE RIGHT OF THE 
PEOPLE" as being denied to the States since it's obviously being 
referred to as a power denied and NOT a power of the States, b the FACT 
that it's being identified as being a RIGHT that the people retained.

It's all here in Amendment 10

Amendment X
*The powers not delegated to the United States* by the Constitution, nor 
*prohibited by it to the States* , *are reserved* to the States 
respectively, or *to the people* .

That's twice you see it clearly stated that THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE is 
NOT a power of the United States or the individual States, but is a 
RIGHT and it belongs to the people.  That's saying congress shall make 
no law by denying that the government all of it Feds and State have ZERO 
delegated power to make laws that limit "arms".


And what that right entails is "to keep and bear arms" those are fairly 
easy to describe as far as RIGHT go, keep and bear are owning and 
transporting anywhere in the United States, while the word arms may be 
less common we generally all know what "arms" are.

Arms are the tools of self defense and hunting. Those tools you would 
require of any soldier in your army or NON military "civilian" 
Government law enforcement or to use for personal protection. Pretty 
Much anything that isn't a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION that kills hoards 
of people. If the Government issues it for their people for self defense 
and personal protection then it's "arms" and there is very little that 
beyond what government calls "arms" that is in question or that many 
would argue is their RIGHT.

That also includes the "arms" the government labeled "arms" so they 
could ban them under the NON existent delegated power that the ATF has 
sprung from. And the ATF Alcohol Tobacco and *FIRE-ARMS* which suggests 
that what they regulate and ban is "arms" meaning that they have defined 
for you what they consider arms and legal even as they violate the U.S. 
Constitution and your RIGHTS by intervening between you and your right 
to keep and bear those things they themselves in the ATF called "arms" 
while they wrote the illegal and unconstitutional legislation to 
regulate and ban those "arms".

SO your starting point is that all the arms that government banned or 
regulated as arms are already defined as "arms" from there you can start 
to ask what is a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION.... and we know that they 
have the capacity to kill thousands or millions within one use of the 
weapon.






>>>> It is utterly illogical to write a national constitution and to embed
>>>> obliquely a method for overthrowing that constitution by force....
>>>
>>> But totally logical for a proud people who had defeated the mightiest 
>>> army in
>>> the world to celebrate their right to keep and bear arms, a right 
>>> they had
>>> enjoyed as British subjects.
>>
>> Indeed, don't British subject have a LONG history of
> 
> No one accepts any blabber about history from the likes of you.
> 
>>>
>>>> ... The Oath-Keepers don't need constitutional authority to 
>>>> overthrow the
>>>> government!  Just *do* it!
>>>
>>>> The South threatened non-ratification unless slavery was explicitly
>>>> encoded into the Constitution of The United States....
>>
>> And just like that Rudy wants to change the subject.
> 
> Nope.  The second amendment came about because of slavery.  This is very 
> well established by historians.
> 
>>
>>> Delaware, Georgia, and South Carolina had already ratified the 
>>> Constitution
>>> while Virginians were flapping their gums and feeling important. In 
>>> fact, nine
>>> states had ratified the Constitution before Virginia was done. The 
>>> United States
>>> existed.
>>>
>>>> ...  The northern states were not going along with slavery.  The second
>>>> amendment was the compromise that allowed us to ratify a founding 
>>>> document.
>>>
>>>> And nothing more.
>>>
>>> Enough states had already ratified it; Virginia wasn't needed.
> 
> False.
> 


-- 
-Reality Matters-