In response to an earlier post where you said:

"Answers (((I guess I have to backstep a bit, because the loss of the right to bear arms really would BE the transition to a slave state)))

We cannot "lose" a right guarenteed to us by the constitution,

however, those with a slave mentality could buckle under government pressure and give their weapons up. Fortunately, there are still millions of hard-nosed patriots out there who won't, and therein lies the problem for TPTB.

-- Quietly (lock and@load.com), December 20, 1999.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"

RESPECTFULLY, THIS IS WRONG

The 21st amendment of the Constitution:

"Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

(The eighteenth amendment obviously was enabling prohibition)

My point is that we CAN lose the rights given to us by law if we allow them to be taken away from us. If one amendment can be repealed, so could any other. I don't want to see

"Section 1. The SECOND article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

Showing up next year, but I think that is improbable, not impossible. I also don't want to put words in your mouth, and I *think* what you meant was that we can't lose our rights if we fight for them, but I get worried that some people think that the constitution and the amendments are inviolable. They aren't, they will only last as long as people are willing to defend them.

Thanks for your patience with me, I'm rather slow,

Frank

P.S. I altered quietlies post by adding spaces on either side of the line starting with "We". Just being complete, -F.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.com), December 20, 1999

Answers

My point is that we CAN lose the rights given to us by law if we allow them to be taken away from us. If one amendment can be repealed, so could any other.

This is incorrect on several counts. First, the Bill of Rights does not grant rights, which are inherent to mankind and cannot be granted or withdrawn by the government. It (supposedly) guarantees them against infringement by the government. Unfortunately, the government has gotten away with infringement after infringement, and their courts (whose employees are government employees, after all) have let them do so.

Second, and more specifically, any attempt to remove the protection of the 2nd Amendment against tyranny would dissolve the "social contract" that gives the Constitution whatever validity it has. This would amount to a declaration of war by the government on the people. Again, it is unfortunate that the courts (government employees, remember) haven't been able to (or don't want to) figure out that the gradual infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights is doing the same thing piecemeal, but they haven't crossed the line completely yet.

My hope is that Y2K sets the totalitarian agenda back permanently. We'll see soon enough.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), December 20, 1999.

Article II 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.

This is not a statement GIVING or taking a right is it? It's saying that a RIGHT shall not be infringed. If this Amendment is ever repealed, or any of the other nine in the Bill of Rights for that matter, then it is exactly what Steve said, "a declaration of war by the government on the people."

I hope for this country's sake they never attempt it.

-- Powder (Powder@keg.com), December 20, 1999.

> Article II 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. > > This is not a statement GIVING or taking a right is it? It's >saying that a RIGHT shall not be infringed. If this Amendment is ever > repealed, or any of the other nine in the Bill of Rights for >that matter, then it is exactly what Steve said, "a declaration of >war by the > government on the people." > > I hope for this country's sake they never attempt it. > > -- Powder (Powder@keg.com), December 20, 1999.

Powder,

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Try carrying a loaded (or unloaded) handgun in L.A. What do you tell the sheriff? I don't need a permit regardless of the law, the B of R says so? Have fun in court. But has anyone claimed the govt. is waging war on its citizens? No.

How about the 5th amendment, also in the B of R. Double jeopardy seems to have fallen by the wayside with people being tried in criminal court then for civil rights violations or tried in civil court for the same actions (Rodney King police officers and O.J. respectively) and no one complained. Now in California as I understand it one can be forced to testify before a grand jury or face jail time and while this testimony can't be used against you *at that time* it is my understanding that it can be used should you be tried for something else later. (Anyone more knowledgeable please correct me if I'm wrong) While I'm not planning on committing any felonies, it seems as if our civil rights are taking a beating as we speak, and there is no protest.

Do you really believe many will protest when for public safety guns are *officially* registered (as in Germany 1935) or when for children's safety firearms become required to be stored at a govt. approved facility? Or when 11 rounds in a clip suddenly becomes too dangerous for civilians?

I don't know, but to me it seems the time to worry is now.

Guess I'm spending too much time worrying about what to get the wife for Christmas, I seem to still be in rant mode.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.com), December 20, 1999.