The change of time should be covered by the amendment process not legislation.
Jim Davis wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Larry Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:37 PM >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: Re: Right To Bear Arms >> >> The language is pretty clear, its more of a collective right based on >> the state(s) to defend itself from an overbearing federal government: >> >> 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. > > While I actually agree with you, I do see the opposing view: > > The Constitution doesn't actually say that the right to bears arms is > _dependent_ upon a "a Well Regulated Militia". Really it just throws out > two statements. It's saying (or at least can be interpreted as doing so) > that a militia is desirable and the right to bear arms will not be > infringed. > > To be flippant it's saying (in its best "Zoidberg" voice): "now that you've > got all those guns, no questions asked, maybe you would like to start a > militia, why not?" (Yes, the Constitution does a fine "Zoidberg".) > > It's not making the right dependent upon organization of militias. It's > giving the right directly ("shall not be infringed"), unattached, and using > militias as driving the reason for doing so. > > I do think that this is the "right" interpretation - I think the framers > honestly meant to place no restrictions on citizen ownership of weapons. At > the same time I don't consider the Constitution divine word either... this, > more than most aspects, needs to be considered in the context of the time. > The politics of a country recently created from citizen rebellion, the > technology of the time, etc. > > Of course a loophole might exist in the definition of "arms"... does that > include nuclear weapons? Flame throwers? Assault weapons? Anything one > guy can carry? There is clearly a line someplace... but where, exactly, is > it drawn? > > Times change - the founders, if alive today, would have given (I'm guessing, > but confident) much more attention to the question. > > I think the bottom line here is that the founders screwed up and created a > very ambiguous statement. Had they been less flowery and more concrete we > would be fighting over this centuries later. > > Jim Davis > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:256746 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
