 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / July 2008The Right Of The People...Shall Not Be Infringed
Bravo! DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas ------------------------------------------ Fellow Patriots, On 30 May, I sent you a request to sign an important petition to "The Right of the People ... shall not be infringed", a citizen petition affirming the Second Amendment's individual "right of the People to keep and bear arms." I urge you to sign this petition today -- right now, please. We need more than 100,000 signatures in order for this petition to be given the attention it deserves from national leaders. To sign this petition online, link to -- http://PatriotPetitions.US/second/ You can also sign this petition by sending a blank e-mail to: <sign-second@PatriotPetitions.US> Please forward this invitation to Patriot family members, friends and associates. Thank you! Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis! Mark Alexander > Bravo! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Fellow Patriots, Yes, and with some of our rights still intact.... Citing Iraq War, Renowned Attorney Vincent Bugliosi Seeks “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” Vincent Bugliosi is one of the most successful prosecutors in this country, with a record including twenty-one murder convictions without a single loss. With a new book, he outlines his case for the prosecution of George W. Bush for murder. [ He outlines a case and a method for making it happen. ] http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/citing_iraq_war_renowned_attorney_vincent > > Bravo! > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/citing_iraq_war_renowned_attorn... The prosecutor with the balls to take that case has not been born yet. i hope I am wrong. >On 30 May, I sent you a request to sign an important petition to >"The Right of the People ... shall not be infringed", a citizen >petition affirming the Second Amendment's individual "right of the >People to keep and bear arms." Check back after the pending SCOTUS case. I have a feeling that they aren't going to overturn the status quo. That is, you are allowed to have a gun unless your community passes a law saying otherwise. The courts have never taken the "right of the people" clause as independent of the "well regulated militia" clause. Jones > On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:32:25 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam "D. Spencer > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jones Be a damn sight easier to just repeal the stupid ammendment. Happened with prohibition >> Check back after the pending SCOTUS case. I have a feeling that they >> aren't going to overturn the status quo. That is, you are allowed to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Be a damn sight easier to just repeal the stupid ammendment. Happened >with prohibition Nevah hoppon, GI. I doubt that a Constitutional Convention is possible. Presser established (to most, anyway) that the second amendment is a restriction on the federal government and does not apply to states or local jurisdictions. That seems to make sense, as people in Goldfield, Nevada or rural Wyoming would obviously need different laws than Detroit or San Francisco. Of course, the question of larger interest is whether or not 2A establishes an *individual* right similar to "freedom of religion" or rhe right to representation. If SCOTUS interprets it thus, then that will be new ground as they've never gone there. I'm guessing that they might take a narrow view. I might bet on an interpretation that overturned DC's law because it was first enacted by *federal* fiat, but left them free to redefine the DC laws as the voters therein see fit, now that they make their own laws. Jones >>> Check back after the pending SCOTUS case. I have a feeling that they >>> aren't going to overturn the status quo. That is, you are allowed to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Nevah hoppon, GI. Geeze, Jonesy, next you'll be saying "me butterfly you long time". - nilita >>>> Check back after the pending SCOTUS case. I have a feeling that they >>>> aren't going to overturn the status quo. That is, you are allowed to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Geeze, Jonesy, next you'll be saying "me butterfly you long time". Me love you no sh.t GI, take me to the land of the Great BX & buy me air-conditioned Helicopter.  Signature"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks." >>> Check back after the pending SCOTUS case. I have a feeling that they >>> aren't going to overturn the status quo. That is, you are allowed to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Nevah hoppon, GI. I doubt that a Constitutional Convention is > possible. Or advisable - there is nothing to stop a Constitutional Convention from tearing up the Constitution and itself ruling instead. SignatureJohn Briggs >>>> Check back after the pending SCOTUS case. I have a feeling that they >>>> aren't going to overturn the status quo. That is, you are allowed to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Or advisable - there is nothing to stop a Constitutional Convention from > tearing up the Constitution and itself ruling instead. of course they couldn't just tear it up. you need 2/3rds of congress or the states to want one and 3/4ths of the states to pass any law. they have to get the people of >> Nevah hoppon, GI. I doubt that a Constitutional Convention is >> possible. > >Or advisable - there is nothing to stop a Constitutional Convention from >tearing up the Constitution and itself ruling instead. That's exactly the issue. More likely, they'd never agree on anything, so it would be a waste of time. Jones >Of course, the question of larger interest is whether or not 2A >establishes an *individual* right similar to "freedom of religion" or >rhe right to representation. If SCOTUS interprets it thus, then that >will be new ground as they've never gone there. I think they have to go there because it is an individual right. Rights can only be individual in nature. I like the way Scalia puts it: "JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf In this context the right is also protected from infringement of the States through the 14th Amendment. There is ample president for extending protection provided by the first 8 Amendments to the States. Bravo Scalia! DSH >>Of course, the question of larger interest is whether or not 2A >>establishes an *individual* right similar to "freedom of religion" or [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > States through the 14th Amendment. There is ample precedent for > extending protection provided by the first 8 Amendments to the States. >I think they have to go there because it is an individual right. >Rights can only be individual in nature. Well, when it was written, there was no greater consensus than there is now; 2A was a compromise. Had the participants all agreed with you (and some, undoubtedly, did), then it could easily have been lumped into 1A which clearly and obviously addresses individual, protected rights. Notice that 1A does not start off with a long [choose one: ("preamble", "qualifier")]... it's an example of clarity: "Congress shall make no law..." Now, I'll agree that you can find many who accept your position; however, in practice, it has never been thus. Should SCOTUS rule broadly, it will have a great impact and I doubt they'll go there either way. I'm betting that they uphold the circuit court on the grounds that DC's law was given by the federal legislature (see: Presser), but leave DC free to write its own laws through the representative democratic process they have now. Which will settle nothing. Jones >>I think they have to go there because it is an individual right. >>Rights can only be individual in nature. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >("preamble", "qualifier")]... it's an example of clarity: "Congress >shall make no law..." The first ten amendments were designed to protect individual rights and State powers. They made it possible for the Constitution to be ratified. They could well have included all Ten on one amendment, but that they didn't does not lesson their importance. The wording is also very clearly meant to indicate that the rights were in existence prior to the Constitution and must be protected against any laws that would usurp them. >Now, I'll agree that you can find many who accept your position; >however, in practice, it has never been thus. Should SCOTUS rule [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Which will settle nothing. The SCOTUS can interpret it however they please, that's their power, and that is also their potential curse. If they wish to be intellectually honest and honorable in their performance, they will see rights as individually owned and will seek to rule in favor of their protection. Redefining meaning through the claim of an "living Constitution" is a slippery slope, that can only lead to further erosion of the People's rights. >The first ten amendments were designed to protect individual rights and >State powers. They made it possible for the Constitution to be ratified. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >slippery slope, that can only lead to further erosion of the People's >rights. We don't know that the participants intended to draft a "bill of rights"; that term was added later. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that 2A recognizes a fundamental right of all human beings. Now, when a person is convicted of a felony, he or she automatically cannot possess a weapon; therefore, it is not a "right". Consider the ramifications: here is a person who was convicted of a felony; this person *may NOT* attend church, may not publish, may not be represented by an attorney... a right cannot be forfeit. Of course, rights may be removed by a jury as an explicit part of the punishment... i.e. a prisoner isn't released to attend the Church of the Great Pumpkin, but after his or her sentence is served, rights revert. Consider also the first act of US soldiers in Iraq: we went door to door collecting guns... of course, it is the position of this administration that our constitution only applies to people physically in the US... I think that's a *HUGE* mistake. Basic human rights are universal. As to your other point: the way SCOTUS interprets a constitutional issue is final. In the past, they have not declared local laws unconstitutional; however, Presser seemed to hint that there would be an issue if a law-giving body banned *all* guns... and the DC laws are pretty close to that. I say that they won't take a stand, that the cities all want strong gun laws, and that the gun industry has a very potent lobby, also... they'll make a narrow ruling and leave the status quo. Jones >We don't know that the participants intended to draft a "bill of >rights"; that term was added later. The Anti-Federalists certainly did intend that the guarantee of rights be added to the Constitution before ratification. They were not happy at all about the lack of any mention of the People's rights in the original body of the Constitution, and rightly so. It was later called the BOR only because that is exactly the reason for the additions - to add protection for the People's rights from the power of government. >Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that 2A recognizes a >fundamental right of all human beings. Now, when a person is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >prisoner isn't released to attend the Church of the Great Pumpkin, but >after his or her sentence is served, rights revert. What about a death penalty? How does that work, then? I'm not necessarily against including a sentence that curtails certain rights - that is the case with Felons at the moment in that their RTKBA is curtailed until death - I do however believe that their should be due process before the government can automatically curtail the rights of any individual. Passing a law that says that all people convicted of a "felony" cannot own a firearm is IMO unreasonable as there is no due process for removing the right itself. >Consider also the first act of US soldiers in Iraq: we went door to >door collecting guns... of course, it is the position of this >administration that our constitution only applies to people physically >in the US... I think that's a *HUGE* mistake. Basic human rights are >universal. I agree with you. When you go around spouting off about human rights you should be willing to recognize that your countrymen are not the only humans on the planet. >As to your other point: the way SCOTUS interprets a constitutional >issue is final. In the past, they have not declared local laws >unconstitutional; however, Presser seemed to hint that there would be >an issue if a law-giving body banned *all* guns... and the DC laws are >pretty close to that. Of course they have declared local laws unconstitutional - many times. See Griswold v. Connecticut, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, etc... The application of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment should apply to all protected rights, which are far more than just those enumerated in the Constitution. >I say that they won't take a stand, that the cities all want strong >gun laws, and that the gun industry has a very potent lobby, also... >they'll make a narrow ruling and leave the status quo. You may be right, but I hope that they do have the courage to state once and for all that the RTKBA is an individual right protected by the Constitution. This monkey business has gone on long enough. >The Anti-Federalists certainly did intend that the guarantee of rights be >added to the Constitution before ratification. They were not happy at all >about the lack of any mention of the People's rights in the original body >of the Constitution, and rightly so. It was later called the BOR only >because that is exactly the reason for the additions - to add protection >for the People's rights from the power of government. I agree that this is one popular way of interpreting history; the people who stood against a strong, central government also tended to favor strong state governments, thus, any power not expressly given the fed is reserved for the states. I agree that your interpretation isn't counterintuitive and is shared by many. Then, as now, there was not a clear consensus. This is why 2A tends to try to go both ways... it's a compromise. On one hand, it's codified into the constitution; on the other, it's qualified by some kind of collective right. You can't take just one phrase; you must take both of them... the famous KABA part is modified and qualified by the first phrase. I'm aware that some disagree; however, this is how SCOTUS has interpreted in in Presser and Miller. I do not expect that they will depart far from that. Jones > !Jones > > You can't take just one phrase; you must take both of them... > the famous KABA part is modified and qualified by the first > phrase. Actually, you have it a.s-backwards; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# Grammar "Reading the Second Amendment" By Sheldon Richman http://www.fee.org/PUBLICATIONS/THE-FREEMAN/article.asp?aid=3230&print_view=true "Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment" http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html >> You can't take just one phrase; you must take both of them... >> the famous KABA part is modified and qualified by the first >> phrase. > >Actually, you have it a.s-backwards; OK... if you have anything further to contribute, then feel free... don't let 'lil 'ole ME intimidate you. Jones > !Jones > > As to your other point: the way SCOTUS interprets a constitutional > issue is final. That is, unless the People disagree. http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q169/estasiak/2007CampingArsenal.jpg Great Picture... DSH >> !Jones >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q169/estasiak/2007CampingArsenal.jpg >> the way SCOTUS interprets a constitutional >> issue is final. > >That is, unless the People disagree. I couldn't imagine a decision with which all will agree. Here's my (slightly) educated guess: SCOTUS upholds 5C striking the DC law on the basis that it was given by federal fiat (see Presser), but leaves the citizens of DC free to exercise their representative democracy to pass any new laws they want... thus, if you live there and want a gun, then register to vote and do so! Waving guns only makes you look irresponsible... you really don't want to come across as a loon ready to blow up federal buildings, etc. Jones >>The first ten amendments were designed to protect individual rights and >>State powers. They made it possible for the Constitution to be ratified. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > in the US... I think that's a *HUGE* mistake. Basic human rights are > universal. actually iraqis have the right to possess 1 AK47 and a clip of ammo. and if you watched newsreels from iraq you'd know that. >actually iraqis have the right to possess 1 AK47 and a clip of ammo. >and if you watched newsreels from iraq you'd know that. Yes, Iraqi laws under Saddam were quite liberal; Iraqis were some of the best armed people on the planet and legally thus. I don't know what the laws of the occupation are... whatever they are, they do it because it's allowed, not because it's a fundamental right. Jones >>actually iraqis have the right to possess 1 AK47 and a clip of ammo. >>and if you watched newsreels from iraq you'd know that. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jones Remember the old bait-and-switch of the early '60s? The government got a big program going with everybody building bomb shelters but they never issued any bombs. Hundreds of thousands of bomb shelters and not a nuke in any of 'em. I prefer to believe it was poor planning because the alternative is so repugnant; a deliberate deception by our own government. A whole generation believing in the principle of weapons for self defense, only to have all hope dashed upon the rocks of reality. I can believe it of the politicians, but to think we've been swindled by the military just makes me hoppin' mad. Nukes aren't even available as military surplus. It's just not right, I tell ya. Pepperoni >>>actually iraqis have the right to possess 1 AK47 and a clip of ammo. >>>and if you watched newsreels from iraq you'd know that. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Pepperoni I 'member those. Actually, growing up in Oklahoma, most houses had a storm cellar or something like that. Dunno how much good they'd do against a nuke, but I doubt they'd do any harm. Jones > On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:25:06 -0400, in alt.war.vietnam "Pepperoni" > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Jones Twer the fallout that twas the problem. You might survive that first whump but you would need filtered air and food to last you for the time it took for the fallout to die down. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jmoilane/nuclear/Fallout.html Radiation can stay resonant for many years. Here is the breakdown of the half-lives of the most common nucleotides. Half-lives Radio nuclide Half-Life Products of Fission Half-Life U-233 158,000 yrs Iodine-131 8 days U-235 704 Million yrs Krypton-85 10.8 yrs U-238 4.47 Billion yrs Tritium 12.3 yrs Th-232 14 Billion Strontium-90 28 yrs Pu-239 24,400 yrs Cesium-137 30 yrs This is the one that did in Superman. DSH > U-235 704 Million yrs Krypton-85 10.8 yrs >> I 'member those. Actually, growing up in Oklahoma, most houses had a >> storm cellar or something like that. Dunno how much good they'd do [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >whump but you would need filtered air and food to last you for the >time it took for the fallout to die down. Sure, but, if you get whumped, then the fallout is irrelevant. Besides, one needs time to repent. Jones >>> I 'member those. Actually, growing up in Oklahoma, most houses had a >>> storm cellar or something like that. Dunno how much good they'd do [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Sure, but, if you get whumped, then the fallout is irrelevant. > Besides, one needs time to repent. Isn't this where you usually post that Blood of the Lamb song, Jonesy? .. ;) - nilita >> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:25:06 -0400, in alt.war.vietnam "Pepperoni" >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Th-232 14 Billion Strontium-90 28 yrs > Pu-239 24,400 yrs Cesium-137 30 yrs I think that we in Canadian elementary school were fed a line. We thought we just had to crouch under our desks and we'd be okay. - nilita >>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:25:06 -0400, in alt.war.vietnam "Pepperoni" >>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > - nilita That's for the crap falling from the ceiling. Works for any building-shaking event (earthquakes, bombs, winds, etc.), as does the admonition to avoid windowed walls. Dan >> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:25:06 -0400, in alt.war.vietnam "Pepperoni" >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Th-232 14 Billion Strontium-90 28 yrs > Pu-239 24,400 yrs Cesium-137 30 yrs If thats all so terrible, how come people live in Hiroshima & Nagasaki and have done so for decades. Where either of these cities in fact ever entirely evacuated after the bombs? >If thats all so terrible, how come people live in Hiroshima & Nagasaki and >have done so for decades. >Where either of these cities in fact ever entirely evacuated after the >bombs? I recall the story of a kid whose school was literally at ground zero... or so it went. I think he is now (or was) curator of the museum... History Channel stuff, so take it with whatever size grain of salt you want. Maybe he was beneath his desk? I've also heard that 12" of water is better than concrete... and it makes sense. Jones > >actually iraqis have the right to possess 1 AK47 and a clip of ammo. > >and if you watched newsreels from iraq you'd know that. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what the laws of the occupation are... whatever they are, they do it > because it's allowed, not because it's a fundamental right. He was letting you know what the current rules in Iraq are.. Signature"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!" - Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" > !Jones > > Presser established (to most, anyway) To most anti-gunners, anyway. > that the second amendment is a restriction on the federal government > and does not apply to states or local jurisdictions. PRESSER v. ILLINOIS was primarily concerned with the formation of private military units, as far as how the 2nd Amendment related to individuals; "The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the States. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security." > That seems to make sense, as people in Goldfield, Nevada or rural > Wyoming would obviously need different laws than Detroit or San > Francisco. Indeed, one could easily get by in Wyoming with only a double barrel shotgun but in Detroit, a belt-fed full-auto weapon is the only way to go.... >> Presser established (to most, anyway) > >To most anti-gunners, anyway. I'm not going to comment on the philosophical "buzz words". SCOTUS, citing Presser, has declined to hear cases involving local ordinances and state laws. A law-making body other than the federal government, according to most interpretations of Presser, is not restricted by 2A... none of their actions have ever been declared unconstitutional, anyway. Thus, you should participate in your local government by voting. If you aren't happy with the result of the vote, well... that's democracy. You are free to move someplace where you're allowed to carry a belt-fed weapon. I understand that the gun laws in Mogadishu, Somalia are fairly liberal... I've never been there, though, so I have no first-hand knowledge. Iraq, before the US invasion, was also a gun owner's paradise. or so I'm given to understand. Jones >> !Jones >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States > of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security." {snip} <http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html> Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power to Call forth the Militia and to 'disciplining the Militia'. "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; " Article 2 Section 2 makes the President the Commander in Chief of the Militias. "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. " It may be possible for a private militia to exist but I suspect that it will need some sort of licence or warrant from the state governor or legislators. Andrew Swallow >It may be possible for a private militia to exist but I suspect that >it will need some sort of licence or warrant from the state governor >or legislators. Presser is an odd dance of logic. I have never seen how something could restrict congress and not restrict states who derive their very existence as such by an act of congress. It seems to say that a total ban would, somehow, prevent the federal government from raising a militia. I also don't know why the fed would *want* a militia... in the past, they've proven pretty useless. Jones Nonsense... The States don't "derive their very existence" from Congress. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas > I have never seen how something could restrict congress [sic] > and not restrict states who derive their very > existence as such by an act of congress. [sic] >Nonsense... > >The States don't "derive their very existence" from Congress. > >DSH Well, OK... from my high school civics class: states are added to the United States by an act of the US Congress. If my teacher was wrong, then you may suggest how else it happens. Jones > Andrew Swallow >> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Article 2 Section 2 makes the President the Commander in Chief of the > Militias. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1792 ... That *_each and every free able-bodied white male citizen_* of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,... That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, *_provide himself_* with a good musket or firelock,... ... and every citizen so enrolled, and *_providing himself_* with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid,... Seems pretty clear to me that while the Congress and President have the power to call out and command the militia when needed, the militia consists of the people and the people are required to have their own weapons. >> Andrew Swallow >>> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > the militia consists of the people and the people are required to > have their own weapons. Military weapons. SignatureJohn Briggs > John Briggs >> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Military weapons. Indeed and another point against the anti-gunners, as the Militia Act goes so far as to stipulate that the privately purchased and owned weapons that the citizens keep and bear, be compatible with those being issued by the Federal government to the standing army; "and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound...." >> John Briggs >>> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient > for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound...." Military ammunition of the period wasn't '18 balls to the pound'. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. William Black > > Ed Stasiak > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Military ammunition of the period wasn't '18 balls to the pound'. So you're suggesting the Militia Act specifically called for ammo that _wasn't_ compatible with military ammo? I'm not hip to what exactly was used at the time but based on your past comments on the technical details of firearms, I'll wait for wait for a second opinion. >William Black >> > Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >So you're suggesting the Militia Act specifically called for ammo >that _wasn't_ compatible with military ammo? No he saying (once again) that he knows not from which he speaks. >I'm not hip to what exactly was used at the time but based on your >past comments on the technical details of firearms, I'll wait for wait >for a second opinion. At the time a "Pound" was a "Troy Pound" consisted of 12 ounces which is ~454 grams or to be more precise 5760 grains. A standard musket ball of the time was 320 grains. Therefore one Troy Pound consisting of 5760 grains divided by 320 grains yields 18 musket balls. Or there about as weights & measurements weren't as precise as today & smooth bore musket balls could have some variance in them and still function just fine. One might be 315 grains and another 325, but that would still average 320 grains. A musket has no rifling to spin the ball. It is "smoothbored" and will shoot both ball or shot, or a combination of the two. The firearms of the period used blackpowder. Blackpowder leaves fouling behind when fired. For this reason, the balls used by the military were undersized, so that the troops could quickly seat the next load down the barrel. The British musket, (the Brown Bess), was 75 caliber and they used a 69 caliber ball. The French musket (the Charleyville), supplied to the Americans, was 69 caliber and fired a 65 caliber ball. Signature"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks." >>>John Briggs >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Military ammunition of the period wasn't '18 balls to the pound'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Bess British military issue from 1722 until 1838 300 to 325 grain soft lead round ball, 0.70 to 0.72 inch diameter 18 to the troy pound, 2/3 troy ounces each 22 to the avdp. pound, 3/4 avdp. ounces each. David Hughes ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups Wee Willie Black strikes out again! WHOOOOOSH! He's a demon for punishment. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas >>>>John Briggs >>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > David Hughes > Wee Willie Black strikes out again! You are David Spencer Hines. A retired officer of the US Navy and a notorious anti-Semite and ally of other anti-Semites. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>>John Briggs >>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > 18 to the troy pound, 2/3 troy ounces each Did they work in Troy ounces then? SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. Black The Ignorant presses on -- looking for more punishment. Hilarious! He's in Full Retreat. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas >>>>"and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from >>>>arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> 18 to the troy pound, 2/3 troy ounces each >> David Hughes > Did they work in Troy ounces then? > Black The Ignorant presses on -- looking for more punishment. You are David Spencer Hines. A retired officer of the US Navy and a notorious anti-Semite and ally of other anti-Semites. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>>>John Briggs >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Did they work in Troy ounces then? Troy, Avourdupois, Mercahnt, Tower,and London systems of weight were all in use at that time in England. ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups >>>> John Briggs >>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > 22 to the avdp. pound, 3/4 avdp. ounces each. Not to mention the usual bore/gauge/calibre confusion. In modern terms, it would be "22 Bore". SignatureJohn Briggs > John Briggs >> David J. Hughes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Not to mention the usual bore/gauge/calibre confusion. In modern terms, > it would be "22 Bore". The term "bore" (or in the U.S., gauge) wouldn't apply as the Brown Bess wasn't a shotgun but a rifle, in which case "caliber" is the correct term. Why don't have a seat over there, with Mr.Black.... >> John Briggs >>> David J. Hughes [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Why don't have a seat over there, with Mr.Black.... Nope (I can see why you are not keen on owning 18th-century weapons) - the Brown Bess is a musket (i.e. smoothbore) not a rifle. Could I direct you to the Ferguson Rifle (breech-loader - could have won us the American War of Independence - arguably, should have...), the Baker Rifle, even the (so-called) Kentucky Rifle? SignatureJohn Briggs > John Briggs >> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Nope (I can see why you are not keen on owning 18th-century weapons) > the Brown Bess is a musket (i.e. smoothbore) not a rifle. True, the Brown Bess is labeled a "musket" but that is to differentiate it from other types of firearms like musketoons, carbines, ect. But as it's neither a handgun nor shotgun, it is correctly categorized as a "rifle" regardless of whether the barrel is rifled or not and in which case the term "caliber" is used to describe the inside diameter of the barrel, not bore or gauge. > Could I direct you to the Ferguson Rifle, the Baker Rifle, even the > (so-called) Kentucky Rifle? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rifled_muskets >> John Briggs >>> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > differentiate it from other types of firearms like musketoons, > carbines, ect. It's labelled a musket because it *is* a musket... > But as it's neither a handgun nor shotgun, it is correctly > categorized as a "rifle" regardless of whether the barrel is rifled > or not and in which case the term "caliber" is used to describe the inside > diameter of the barrel, not bore or gauge. It is *not* correctly categorised as a "rifle" - not least because it isn't a rifle. Technically, it is a shotgun. Cf the .410 shotgun (calibre? Bore? gauge?) >> Could I direct you to the Ferguson Rifle, the Baker Rifle, even the >> (so-called) Kentucky Rifle? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rifled_muskets Precisely - that means there is a category of unrifled muskets. SignatureJohn Briggs > It is *not* correctly categorised as a "rifle" - not least because it > isn't a rifle. Technically, it is a shotgun. Cf the .410 shotgun (calibre? > Bore? gauge?) Ah, the 410 is a funny bugger. It's the case diameter (or some other diameter, I keep getting pulled up on minor firearms details at the moment so I'll be careful) of a '.303 British' rifle cartridge and was supposed to be used in bored out service rifles that seem to have been in great supply in private hands after 1918. It's just about the only example I know of where the ammunition was designed to fit the firearm rather than the opposite... Not sure about the Gyrojet pistol though... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> It is *not* correctly categorised as a "rifle" - not least because it >> isn't a rifle. Technically, it is a shotgun. Cf the .410 shotgun [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Not sure about the Gyrojet pistol though... But those bored-out rifles would be shotguns (which is the point at issue!) SignatureJohn Briggs >>> It is *not* correctly categorised as a "rifle" - not least because it >>> isn't a rifle. Technically, it is a shotgun. Cf the .410 shotgun [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > But those bored-out rifles would be shotguns (which is the point at > issue!) Without a doubt. I used to have one. It was carried on a UK shotgun certificate which defines a shotgun as a smoothbore weapon with a barrel length of over 24 inches... In law in the UK it was certainly a shotgun. Exactly the same as my reproduction Long Land Pattern... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. On Jun 21, 4:25 pm, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >>> It is *not* correctly categorised as a "rifle" - not least because it > >>> isn't a rifle. Technically, it is a shotgun. Cf the .410 shotgun [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach > Time for tea. Brings up another of my dumb questions. I watched a little bit of a TV program last night with the U.S. National Collegiate Clay Pigeon shooting championships. I noticed that about half of the contestants shot left handed. I know that bowling left handed has an advantage for the bowler, does shooting left handed have some advantage? > Brings up another of my dumb questions. I watched a little bit of a TV > program last night with the U.S. National Collegiate Clay Pigeon > shooting championships. I noticed that about half of the contestants > shot left handed. I know that bowling left handed has an advantage for > the bowler, does shooting left handed have some advantage? I only ever shot rifle and pistol competitively. Left handed rifle shots have a cost penalty. Left handed bolt action rifles cost more... Left handed pistol shots sometimes get problems. First of all the controls on a pistol are often on the right hand side and positioned for right handed shooters. This isn't usually a problem as formal target shooters don't use the safety and the slide lock is usually operated by the non shooting hand. Second, the empty cases are usually ejected to the left. One left handed shooter of my acquaintance was badly burned on the eye by a .22 LR case landing between his eye and his glasses and resting on the skin while it cooled and he tried to remove it. He had the presence of mind to put the gun down before he started clawing at his face, which was a relief as I was standing next to him at the time... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > Brings up another of my dumb questions. I watched a little bit of a TV > program last night with the U.S. National Collegiate Clay Pigeon > shooting championships. I noticed that about half of the contestants > shot left handed. I know that bowling left handed has an advantage for > the bowler, does shooting left handed have some advantage? As Mr Black pointed out, being left handed is a handicap in rifle and pistol shooting. As Sporting Clay shooter tend to use over/under shotguns, there is no disadvantage to being left handed. It may simply be a case of left handers mostly shooting in a sport where they have no disadvantage. There may be a VERY slight advantage in being left eye dominant in left to right crossing shots, as the barrel never obscures your sight of the target, but the same holds true for right eyed dominant shooters in right to left crossing shots. ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups <SNIP> > Brings up another of my dumb questions. I watched a little bit of a TV > program last night with the U.S. National Collegiate Clay Pigeon > shooting championships. I noticed that about half of the contestants > shot left handed. I know that bowling left handed has an advantage for > the bowler, does shooting left handed have some advantage? Don't know, but which way do the clay pigeons usually track? Can't imagine any other potential advantage. > <SNIP> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Can't imagine any other potential advantage. They take turns from both sides, so there is no advantage either way. Perhaps it is simply the absense of disadvantage that attracts the lefties. Could "right brain" dominance have something to do with it? >>It is *not* correctly categorised as a "rifle" - not least because it >>isn't a rifle. Technically, it is a shotgun. Cf the .410 shotgun (calibre? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Not sure about the Gyrojet pistol though... The .410 shotgun has a barrel with a nominal .410" opening. The .410 case is 0.446", with a 0.528" rim. The .303 British has a base diameter of 0.458", a shoulder of 0.402", a neck diameter of 0.337", with a 0.530" rim, firing a bullet of 0.311". Total case length is 2.21". total cartridge lenght is 3.05" Slightly larger than the 7.62x51 NATO round. There is also the 9 mm shotgun. ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups >>John Briggs >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rifled_muskets If it's not rifled, it's not a rifle. Musketoons and carbines are simply subclasses of muskets, until the carbine evolved into a subclass of rifles. The "Brown Bess" has several variations, starting with the Long Land Pattern Musket, with a 46" barrel. Later versions were the Marine Pattern and Short Land Pattern, both with 42" barrels, and the India Pattern, with a 39" barrel. All were smoothbore, 0.75 calibre, flintlock muskets. All could be loaded with ball, shot, or "buck and ball" (.71" diameter ball with three buckshot of .24" to .30" diameter loaded above the main ball). All of these loads were issued in paper cartridges to British troops. Waxed paper cartridge. Tear cartridge open with teeth, pour a small amount of powder into the flash pan, close frissen to keep the powder in the pan, ground musket, pour remainder of powder down barrel, reverse the cartidge so the end with the ball goes into the barrel first, ram ball and paper down, return ram rod, raise musket to firing position, cock. Modern users of muskets prime the pan last, using a separate powder horn, as a safety measure. If you are in a hurry, and are going to fire immediately, you can drop the ball without the paper into the powder charge, and seat it by firmly striking the musket vertically on the ground, saving the time used to draw, ram and return the ramrod. Without the paper wadding, however, the ball can roll out the end of the barrel before firing, or, worse, hang in the barrel, rendering the musket useless until the ball can be extracted from the barrel with a "worm". ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups > David J. Hughes >> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Musketoons and carbines are simply subclasses of muskets, until the > carbine evolved into a subclass of rifles. And when discussing firearms _in general_ as we were in this thread, a musket (or musketoon, carbine, ect) is correctly classified as a rifle (even thou it can be used with a shot load) and thus the term caliber is used, not bore or gauge. Just as if we had been discussing automobiles in general, there would have been no need to specify between sub-compacts, stationwagons, muscle cars, sedans, ect, "car" would have been perfectly acceptable. >> David J. Hughes >>> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > rifle (even thou it can be used with a shot load) and thus the term > caliber is used, not bore or gauge. Is this a strange use of "correct" with which I am not familiar? For the avoidance of doubt, that "classification" is *not* correct. SignatureJohn Briggs >>David J. Hughes >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > (even thou it can be used with a shot load) and thus the term caliber > is used, not bore or gauge. A smoothbore is never a rifle. By your arguement, a shot gun is a rifle, as it can fire solid ball as well as shot. Perhaps the term you are seeking is "long arm" or "shoulder arm", both of which encompass rifles, shotguns, muskets, musketoons, carbines, blunderbusses, volley guns. Your continual error in referring to a smoothbore as a rifle calls into question the validity of your opinions. > Just as if we had been discussing automobiles in general, there would > have been no need to specify between sub-compacts, stationwagons, > muscle cars, sedans, ect, "car" would have been perfectly acceptable. Really bad example. "Automobile", even "auto", once "automobile" had been established as the subject of discussion are correct. "Car" is a much more general term, encompassing chariots, railway carriages, mining carts,....... From Merriam-Webster: 1: a vehicle moving on wheels: as a (archaic) : carriage, chariot b: a vehicle designed to move on rails (as of a railroad) c: automobile 2: the passenger compartment of an elevator 3: the part of an airship or balloon that carries the passengers and cargo From the same source for rifle: 1 a: a shoulder weapon with a rifled bore b: a rifled artillery piece 2plural : soldiers armed with rifles ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups >> John Briggs >>> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient > for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound...." Well, it isn't a point against the anti-gunners, as the Amendment clearly only applies to military weapons, and says nothing about sporting weapons or personal sidearms, which are presumbly left to State and local legislation. SignatureJohn Briggs > John Briggs >> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > or personal sidearms, which are presumbly left to State and local > legislation. Except for the very rich, sporting and personal weapons _were_ military weapons. But even disregarding the 4 comments in Militia Act that clearly state the citizens were required to provide their _own_ weapons, (in addition to no mention at all of State/local governments providing them) one would think that if the Founding Fathers went to all the trouble of listing details like this; "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, *_provide himself_* with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service..." That they would have found the time to mention that the People have no right to keep and bear arms? >> John Briggs >>> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > That they would have found the time to mention that the People have > no right to keep and bear arms? Well, unless you are going to try and argue that there is an unfettered right to keep and bear 18th-century arms, the modern military weapons that conform to the "keeping and bearing" of arms would be government-issue ones for the National Guard (the Militia Act having been finally replaced in 1903.) "Bearing arms" only applies to military weapons - it is not used in the context of sporting or personal use. SignatureJohn Briggs > John Briggs >> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, unless you are going to try and argue that there is an unfettered > right to keep and bear 18th-century arms, Of course I wouldn't argue that because it doesn't make any sense but I knew when I posted the quotes from the Militia Act, that eventually someone in this thread would suggest that the Founding Fathers had no concept of history or technological innovation and thus the 2nd Amendment only applied to flintlock front-loaders.... > the modern military weapons that conform to the "keeping and bearing" > of arms would be government-issue ones for the National Guard (the > Militia Act having been finally replaced in 1903.) So the Militia Act of 1903 somehow "repealed" the 2nd Amendment? http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311 "(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who *_are not members_* of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." > "Bearing arms" only applies to military weapons - it is not used in the > context of sporting or personal use. Nonsense, bearing arms is bearing arms regardless of the type of weapon. >> John Briggs >>> Ed Stasiak [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > no concept of history or technological innovation and thus the 2nd > Amendment only applied to flintlock front-loaders.... "Muzzle loaders" - a "front-loader" is a washing machine :-) >> the modern military weapons that conform to the "keeping and bearing" >> of arms would be government-issue ones for the National Guard (the >> Militia Act having been finally replaced in 1903.) > > So the Militia Act of 1903 somehow "repealed" the 2nd Amendment? It certainly repealed the 1792 Act, which you have been relying on so far. Arguably, it restricted the application of the 2nd Amendment to the Organized Militia. Do bear in mind (keep in mind...) that the 2nd Amendment is a right of "The People", not of individual citizens. > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311 > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > militia who *_are not members_* of the National Guard or the > Naval Militia." In other words, anyone who can be drafted. >> "Bearing arms" only applies to military weapons - it is not used in >> the context of sporting or personal use. > > Nonsense, bearing arms is bearing arms regardless of the type of > weapon. No, it only has meaning in a military context - cf "take up arms". It refers to waging war - it broadly means "mobilization". Geneva Conventions apply, of course... SignatureJohn Briggs >It certainly repealed the 1792 Act, which you have been relying on so far. >Arguably, it restricted the application of the 2nd Amendment to the >Organized Militia. Do bear in mind (keep in mind...) that the 2nd Amendment >is a right of "The People", not of individual citizens. No law can repeal an Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The "People" are individual citizens, not a grove of Aspen Trees or some massive fungus. If one individual's rights are protected then all of the individuals have equal protection. >> It certainly repealed the 1792 Act, which you have been relying on >> so far. Arguably, it restricted the application of the 2nd Amendment >> to the Organized Militia. Do bear in mind (keep in mind...) that the >> 2nd Amendment is a right of "The People", not of individual citizens. > > No law can repeal an Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Well, I suggest you take that up with Ed Stasiak, as he was the one who asked the question :-) > The "People" are individual citizens, not a grove of Aspen Trees or > some massive fungus. If one individual's rights are protected then all > of the individuals have equal protection. I would refer you to "We the people" - relevant, surely, in this context? SignatureJohn Briggs >> The "People" are individual citizens, not a grove of Aspen Trees or >> some massive fungus. If one individual's rights are protected then all >> of the individuals have equal protection. > >I would refer you to "We the people" - relevant, surely, in this context? I don't know what planet you are from, but here on Earth people are individuals. ;-) "We the People" refers to the individual citizens who banded together in a common cause, as opposed to "We the King". >>> The "People" are individual citizens, not a grove of Aspen Trees or >>> some massive fungus. If one individual's rights are protected then [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > individuals. ;-) "We the People" refers to the individual citizens who > banded together in a common cause, as opposed to "We the King". Exactly - "banded together". Hold on to that concept. SignatureJohn Briggs >>>> The "People" are individual citizens, not a grove of Aspen Trees or >>>> some massive fungus. If one individual's rights are protected then [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Exactly - "banded together". Hold on to that concept. Yes, that is the foundation of all free societies. >>>>> The "People" are individual citizens, not a grove of Aspen Trees or >>>>> some massive fungus. If one individual's rights are protected then [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Yes, that is the foundation of all free societies. So, the right of the people, banded together, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Which means that the Organized Militia may bear arms. Presumably, the Unorganized Militia may keep arms, and bear them when Organized. SignatureJohn Briggs >>>>>> The "People" are individual citizens, not a grove of Aspen Trees or >>>>>> some massive fungus. If one individual's rights are protected then [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Presumably, the Unorganized Militia may keep arms, and bear them when >Organized. No, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is the reason that the individual citizens must have their right to keep and bear arms protected. Well regulated refers to being trained in the use of the arms, not being legislated as to how and when to use the arms. Militia refers to the individual citizens that might be called upon to protect their freedom against enemies foreign or domestic - that includes a tyrannical government in their midst. "The People" described in the U.S. Constitution are individuals, and that isn't just my opinion - it has been confirmed by our Supreme Court many times throughout our history. >>>>>> The "People" are individual citizens, not a grove of Aspen Trees or >>>>>> some massive fungus. If one individual's rights are protected then [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Presumably, the Unorganized Militia may keep arms, and bear them when > Organized. Providing the Unorganised Militia is "well regulated" and compliant with "the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Andrew Swallow >>>>>>> The "People" are individual citizens, not a grove of Aspen >>>>>>> Trees or some massive fungus. If one individual's rights are [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > with "the Authority of training the Militia according to the > discipline prescribed by Congress;" Well, that's the point - the Unorganized Militia isn't, until someone Organizes them. SignatureJohn Briggs >>>It certainly repealed the 1792 Act, which you have been relying on >>>so far. Arguably, it restricted the application of the 2nd Amendment [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I would refer you to "We the people" - relevant, surely, in this context? "We the People", the body politic of the United States, consisting of all individuals with the right to vote. "The people" Distinct in the USC from "persons", all individuals, regardless of citizenship or voting status. Usage of "people" in the USC: Preamble Article 1, section 2 > The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, Amendment 1 > or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment 2 > the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment 4 > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, Amendment 9 > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment 10 > 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. Amendment 17 > elected by the people > until the people fill the vacancies by election HMMMMMM...... "The people", as voters. "The right of the people", individual rights. ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups >>>> It certainly repealed the 1792 Act, which you have been relying on >>>> so far. Arguably, it restricted the application of the 2nd [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > "The people", as voters. > "The right of the people", |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message