On 11/6/04 10:35 PM, in article
, "Cecil Chapman"
wrote:

Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning
in
order to further their agenda, I speak up.


But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. jeesh "paranoia WILL
destroy ya" grin. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their decision
it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
Jeff!

I wasn't really accusing *you* of having an agenda. You did not try to
change the meaning of the words in the 2nd Amendment. But you were defending
the position of the poster that was doing so. Argue the 2nd Amendment all
you wish. I merely stand as a watchdog to the original intent.


Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original views
of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
is
a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.

I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who have
tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
haven't altered any original views, at all.

But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
government that they were working SO hard to put into place? Jeff?
Really??? Isn't a more likely explanation that they recognized that their
new country didn't have a lot of money to fund purchasing weapons for a
formal army and that they wanted to insure that its' citizens had weaponry
so that they could be called up to fight in the event the new country was
attacked? .. "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"

I have issues just as you do with the Patriot Act. But that isn't the issue
under discussion.

As for your question, rationally yes, I do believe that is one of the
reasons. They stated as much in the Declaration of Independence: "When in
the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another..."
They were able to recognize that governments, even the one that they had
just created, might take a horrible change for the worse, and then: "...it
is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness."

They were not so foolish that they did not realize that abolishing and
instituting a new government would involve at least a few exchanges of
gunfire.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com