"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
om...
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!

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?

Do you remember this little event in US history called the Revolution? Of
course the founding fathers would want to afford the citizens the
opportunity to overthrow the government if need be. THEY HAD JUST DONE IT
AND WERE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO KNOW IT MIGHT NEED TO HAPPEN AGAIN! Consider
what was happening in other countries around that time. Sheesh, talk about
rational.