.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,

I deleted a post of mine that, upon reflection, went too far. While I think LR's idea about arming drivers is foolishly counterproductive, it is his opinion, and he is entitled to it. I apologize to everyone for the post and the interruption.

quote:

The criminals will get fire arms reguardless.

Unfortunately. One way is by disarming (getting the 'drop on' -) armed pizza delivery people. N'est-ce pas?

'...Georgia Legislature approved a bill allowing permit holders to carry concealed firearms in public places such as restaurants that serve liquor, state parks and transit systems such as MARTA.

The bill also made it legal for any nonfelon — including those without a permit — to carry a loaded firearm beneath a car seat or other easily accessible hiding place in a vehicle...' We're locked and loaded into our Rambo fantasy

'...The Florida House did the bidding of the National Rifle Association by passing a measure that would allow employees to bring their guns to work, as long as they leave them in their locked vehicles.

I guess you never know when you'll have to shoot your way out of the parking lot at quitting time...

...legislators decided that maybe it wouldn't be good idea to bring a gun to work if you are employed at a school, a prison, a nuclear power plant or - here's my favorite - a business that deals with the "manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials."..' In Florida, feel free to bear arms at work, get busy with a bear

MELBOURNE, Fla. -- A gun belonging to a customer inside a Chili's restaurant in Melbourne accidentally discharged, hitting a nearby person eating dinner, according to police. - http://www.local6.com/news/15864558/detail.html
--------
The rest of the diners immediately felt safer, no doubt.

Difficult to believe that the right to blow off your buddy's foot in a restaurant was what the writers of 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State...' had in mind. Shouldn't there be some kind of mandatory proficiency test - like there is for car drivers?

Meanhwile, in Iraq, 'The Iraqi Cabinet on Sunday approved for submission to parliament a measure barring political parties with militias from participating in upcoming provincial elections — the latest step in government bid to isolate radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr...'
iht.com

That's actually more the kind of situation the framers of the Second Amendment were imagining and legislating for, isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:

Shouldn't there be some kind of mandatory proficiency test - like there is for car drivers?

Good idea. What would the test contain?

Our driving test contains an eyesight test and a test of reaction time, inter alia.The latter could be met by a 'quick on the draw' test.

Or you could have a test like clay pigeon shooting, where the target travels quickly and the shooter has to guess its height,speed and trajectory correctly, these being varied at random.Or you could demand that the shooter be encumbered by carrying a pizza in a box, or anything else they might have e.g $20 in change, a handbag [purse], car keys or a small child.

If you can throw the small child in the air, shoot down the clay pigeon, and catch the child before it hits the ground, they will hire you without a second interview.

quote:

Originally posted by coldfuse:
If you can throw the small child in the air, shoot down the clay pigeon, and catch the child before it hits the ground, they will hire you without a second interview.

Senator Clinton would be first in line to take the test.Talking in Pennsylvania this week, she sounded a regular guy and something of a shot. Could down a beer and a double whiskey and shoot down a passing duck in one continuous move. Her dad taught her how to handle a gun (but she perfected her current skill in Bosnia).

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
Arms and the Right

Interesting.If this were being construed here, we'd read the words " A well regulated militia etc" as a preamble,like the preamble to any Act of Parliament (this is, after all a Law) or the recital,traditionally beginning "Whereas..", in a Deed. It explains the reason for the creation of the document and gives its context. It's the key to interpreting anything which is ambiguous or unclear in what follows.

The words " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" are unnecessary in a document intended to give an absolute or universal right to keep and bear arms. If the draftsman means to give an absolute or universal right he'll put "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". He doesn't need any more than that.What you don't need, you don't put, lest you start endless argument (which might go on for centuries )

Therefore our judges would say that the people have a right provided they are members of 'a well regulated militia' but not otherwise.If you are just a family or an individual you have no right. If you are a group of uncontrolled, 'unregulated', vigilantes, you have no right.

This is so obvious, so definitive, so compelling, I wonder that nobody has thought of it before

The gun lobby are quite fond of mentioning our,English, Bill of Rights.Apparently the English had an absolute right to bear arms, a right recited in a constitutional document, but one which modern governments have denied them.That right was preserved by the Founding Fathers and is rightly kept by the Second Amendment; while the British have wrongfully denied their citizens, Americans have not done the same.

Well, that's what you have a preamble for. The preamble to it is "Whereas [King James II] did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom" followed by a list including "by having several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were being armed and employed contrary to law " and the consequent declaration "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law " Not an everlasting and absolute universal right, just a grievance that one side was being armed, and employed illegally too, and one disarmed. Thereafter Protestants could be armed to the degree suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law. Nothing there about defending the state or of any militia, but,note, one grievance in the list is "by raising and keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament , and quartering soldiers contrary to law"

If a document is read with its preamble and in the context of the time of its creation it does not read as some later arguers would wish