"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...
None of those items are in the constitution!
The 2nd amendment is the only one that is even close, and it does not
specify or limit type of arms.


Huh? That's my precise point. If you believe that the constitution must be
interpreted on a literal word-for-word basis, then states can have slavery
if they wish (because the constitution does not expressly prohibit it),
states can prevent women and blacks from voting (because the constitution
does not expressly prohibit it), and the government has no right to regulate
drug sales (because the constitution does not expressly provide for it). If
the intent of the framers is so important, the surely the "arms" mentioned
in the 2nd amendment does not include repeating pistols and automatic rifles
because the framers did not know of such things and could not possibly have
intended them to be included in the definition of "arms."

Peter Aitken

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...
None of those items are in the constitution!
The 2nd amendment is the only one that is even close, and it does not
specify or limit type of arms.


Huh? That's my precise point. If you believe that the constitution must be
interpreted on a literal word-for-word basis, then states can have slavery
if they wish (because the constitution does not expressly prohibit it),
states can prevent women and blacks from voting (because the constitution
does not expressly prohibit it), and the government has no right to
regulate drug sales (because the constitution does not expressly provide
for it). If the intent of the framers is so important, the surely the
"arms" mentioned in the 2nd amendment does not include repeating pistols
and automatic rifles because the framers did not know of such things and
could not possibly have intended them to be included in the definition of
"arms."

Peter Aitken


There is an amendment prohibiting slavery in the US. Drug sales are
interstate commerce. Expressly allowed to be controlled by the Fed's. The
Fed's do overstep their authority at times. Is why we have courts that can
rule on such cases. The state of Texas should have sued the Fed's over
Waco. Was clearly a case of Fed's overstepping their authority. Actually
people should have been tried for murder and gone to jail for other crimes
in that case. Calling out the active duty military, should have had
everyone who authorized it unemployed. If we want to change the
constitution, there are procedures. Been used to pass 16 admendments in
addition to the Original 10 Bill of Rights.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...
None of those items are in the constitution!
The 2nd amendment is the only one that is even close, and it does not
specify or limit type of arms.


Huh? That's my precise point. If you believe that the constitution must
be interpreted on a literal word-for-word basis, then states can have
slavery if they wish (because the constitution does not expressly
prohibit it), states can prevent women and blacks from voting (because
the constitution does not expressly prohibit it), and the government has
no right to regulate drug sales (because the constitution does not
expressly provide for it). If the intent of the framers is so important,
the surely the "arms" mentioned in the 2nd amendment does not include
repeating pistols and automatic rifles because the framers did not know
of such things and could not possibly have intended them to be included
in the definition of "arms."

Peter Aitken


There is an amendment prohibiting slavery in the US.

You are corerct - my mistake.

Drug sales are interstate commerce. Expressly allowed to be controlled by
the Fed's.

Interpretation! Where are drugs mentioned in the constitution? Or why can't
drug companies sell horse pee within a state?

The Fed's do overstep their authority at times. Is why we have courts
that can rule on such cases. The state of Texas should have sued the
Fed's over Waco. Was clearly a case of Fed's overstepping their
authority. Actually people should have been tried for murder and gone to
jail for other crimes in that case.

Oh please. A law enforcement officer knocks on a door to serve a legal
warrant and is shot. Feeble-minded religious nutcases armed wth machine guns
set their own compound on fire. This has been investigated to death and only
the most fervid conspiracy theory nitwits still whine about it.

Calling out the active duty military, should have had everyone who
authorized it unemployed.

What? That makes no sense at all. Lay off the gin, will ya g?

If we want to change the constitution, there are procedures. Been used to
pass 16 admendments in addition to the Original 10 Bill of Rights.

Yes. And your point is....?

--
Peter Aitken

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...
None of those items are in the constitution!
The 2nd amendment is the only one that is even close, and it does not
specify or limit type of arms.


Huh? That's my precise point. If you believe that the constitution must
be interpreted on a literal word-for-word basis, then states can have
slavery if they wish (because the constitution does not expressly
prohibit it), states can prevent women and blacks from voting (because
the constitution does not expressly prohibit it), and the government has
no right to regulate drug sales (because the constitution does not
expressly provide for it). If the intent of the framers is so
important, the surely the "arms" mentioned in the 2nd amendment does not
include repeating pistols and automatic rifles because the framers did
not know of such things and could not possibly have intended them to be
included in the definition of "arms."

Peter Aitken


There is an amendment prohibiting slavery in the US.

You are corerct - my mistake.

Drug sales are interstate commerce. Expressly allowed to be controlled
by the Fed's.

Interpretation! Where are drugs mentioned in the constitution? Or why
can't drug companies sell horse pee within a state?

The Fed's do overstep their authority at times. Is why we have courts
that can rule on such cases. The state of Texas should have sued the
Fed's over Waco. Was clearly a case of Fed's overstepping their
authority. Actually people should have been tried for murder and gone to
jail for other crimes in that case.

Oh please. A law enforcement officer knocks on a door to serve a legal
warrant and is shot. Feeble-minded religious nutcases armed wth machine
guns

A fully armed contingent of ATF agents attack the compound on trumped up
charges. Machines guns are not against the law in some states. You have to
have a Federal Destructive weapons Permit. $200 / year. Koresh oftern had
lunch with the sheriff of Waco. Go present the warrant then. Then they
come up with child molestation to justify the raid. Federal crime?

set their own compound on fire. This has been investigated to death and
only the most fervid conspiracy theory nitwits still whine about it.

And proof they set the compound on fire. Lots of tear gas canisters flying,
all can start a fire, a tank knocking down wall. That can start a fire
also.


Calling out the active duty military, should have had everyone who
authorized it unemployed.

What? That makes no sense at all. Lay off the gin, will ya g?

The only allowable legal reasons to engage the active military in a raid
with in the USA is Insurrection and Drugs. The drug charge was used, way
after the situation was out of control. No proof of illegal drug trade ever
came up. I guess you think the Army can be used anytime the Fed's want? I
guess you think it is OK to commandeer your house and bivouac troops
therein.


If we want to change the constitution, there are procedures. Been used
to pass 16 admendments in addition to the Original 10 Bill of Rights.

Yes. And your point is....?


My point is that it is up to the states and people to ammend the
constitution via the rules that allow it. Not 5 judges in black robes. My
point is also you are very ignorant of the Constitution.

--
Peter Aitken

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:19:50 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
wrote:

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
hlink.net...
None of those items are in the constitution!
The 2nd amendment is the only one that is even close, and it does not
specify or limit type of arms.


Huh? That's my precise point. If you believe that the constitution must be
interpreted on a literal word-for-word basis, then states can have slavery
if they wish (because the constitution does not expressly prohibit it),
states can prevent women and blacks from voting (because the constitution
does not expressly prohibit it), and the government has no right to regulate
drug sales (because the constitution does not expressly provide for it). If
the intent of the framers is so important, the surely the "arms" mentioned
in the 2nd amendment does not include repeating pistols and automatic rifles
because the framers did not know of such things and could not possibly have
intended them to be included in the definition of "arms."

Peter Aitken

Have you read the Constitution in the last 130 or so years? It clearly
says that slavery is illegal in the US or its territories. It clearly
says that the right to vote cannot be denied due to gender or race and
even the original Constitution clearly says that the federal
government can regulate INTER-STATE drug sales. Hell, even in those
days there were "arms" that were more powerful than flintlocks. They
had cannon, they had mortors, they had bombs and they even had
rudimentary torpedos. All of which were regularly owned by private
individuals. They understood that the the word "arms" meant more than
muskets, rifles and pistols. Pick up a copy of the Constitution at
your local book store tomorrow as we celebrate Constitution Day and
give it a quick glance. You appear to be the reason Bobby Byrd passed
a law requiring the teaching of the Constitution each year on
September 17 (or the day before or after if it falls on a weekend as
it does this year) in every federally publicly funded school and
federal agency.

The Other Dave Hall
Dave Hall

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who
have not got it." -- G.B. Shaw