Dear Lon; Have you considered what you mean when you use the word 'right' and what it means for a person or an insitition of government to possess a right?
A state is a term of international law referring to an entity or group of people possessing the following 4 characteristics (quoted from Black's Law Dictionary): 1) a permanent and large population with, generally, a common language, 2) a well defined and permanent territory, 3) a soverign government with effective control, and 4) a capacity to enter relations with other states. In sum, what this all means is that a state is a centralization of power over a people; surely a 'right' comes out of this somewhere? If a right does not come from a state, where does it come from? And if a state makes rights, how is it it could not 'have' rights by virtue of the fact it is the creator of said rights? Look carefully here at the third line, a state must possess a 'soverign government'. A government is a component part of a state and the administrator of said 'rights'. By saying a government is incapable of possessing 'rights', are you saying that, again, as the administrator of the rights, it is does not have any? Some might argue that it has all the rights, here is the legal definition of soverignty (taken from Black's Law Dictionary, which I really enjoy reading): --------------------- SOVEREIGNTY. The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent. See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 455, 1 L. Ed. 440; Union Bank, v. Hill, 3 Cold. (Tenn.) 325; Moore v. Shaw, 17 cal. 218, 79 Am. Dec. 123; State v. Dixon, 213 P. 227, 66 Mont. 76. The power to do everything in a state without accountability, - to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. Story, Const. § 207. "Political sovereignty is the assertion of self determinate will of the organic people, and in this is the manifistation of its freedom. It is in and through the determination of its sovereignty that the order of the nation is constituted and maintained." Aust. Jur. --------------------- This is a neat definition, not just because it is all inclusive but because it is so old. The Greeks used this as a way of differentiating a state from a tribe, and it has endured for over 3,000 years (probably a lot longer, this is just as far back as I can go without looking up dates). It has endured to modern days and never really changed. What I want to know is, what do you think a 'right' is, based on these other terms? I will post the legal definition later, in the meantime get back to me on what you think it means. M -----Original Message----- From: Lon Lentz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 11:22 AM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban) Thanks for the link. But I have 6 copies of the Constitution in various forms. States do not have rights. Governments do not have rights. You can't enumerate a right to something that, by definition, is incapable of possessing such a thing. Why in the heck would our forefathers feel it necessary to enumerate the right of the organized militia to possess arms? The militia as a whole has no rights. Our national guard has no rights. Our military has no rights. And why do you think that the phrase "well regulated" means the national guards? No national guard existed then. Their concept of milita was a collection of citizens. "Well regulated" does not mean government controlled. I know you yearn for total governmental domination. I realize that "1984" may be a fantasy of the left, but if you look at the word, you would see other definitions. From dictionary.com [regulated]: 3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning 4. To put or maintain in order So, read that phrase as "A[n accurate and properly functioning] militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." Or, "A[n orderly] militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." So, our forefathers realized that in order to have a proper functioning militia, a militia of the citizens, they would need guns, in their PRIVATE possession. Why in private possession? Because the milita is us, the individual. Here is my state's Constitution on the definition of militia: SECTION 2. Militia.-- (a) The militia shall be composed of all able bodied inhabitants of the state who are or have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States; and no person because of religious creed or opinion shall be exempted from military duty except upon conditions provided by law. I'm going to borrow a couple of Timothy's posted quotes about the militia: * "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves .. and include all men capable of bearing arms." Richard Henry Lee- Senator, First Congress "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?" ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
