Uechi-Ryu.com

Here is reminder of why The United States of America was the greatest nation ever. It is called the Bill of Rights. To bad scotus doesnt have a dictonary to help them understand what these words mean. Amendments II & IV being the point of focus.

Amendment I (1791)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.

Amendment II (1791)

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.

Amendment III (1791)

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a
manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV (1791)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V (1791)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand
jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI (1791)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII (1791)

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,
and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the
common law.

Amendment VIII (1791)

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX (1791)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X (1791)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people.

Firechilde,

Welcome to the "Tough Issues" forum... or as some think of it, my den.

It never ceases to amaze me how easily some will twist the obvious meanings of the words of our Founders.

Hi guys. The words 'well regulated' in the second amendment are generally misunderstood by even the most learned among us. At the time the amendments were proposed in the late 1700s 'well regulated' did not mean under government control, it meant 'practiced'. In effect, you had to know how to use your weapon effectively to be part of the militia. Meanings and context change over time. So, Panther's outing this week insured the Uechi practitioners could join the militia! Good job Panther.

I shall work on my 'regulation' tomorrow during lunch.

Regards, Rich

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

I am not sure a well-designed firearm should fit the definition of “dangerous instrumentality” __

A “dangerous instrumentality” is more of an object with the inherent capacity to place people in peril in itself, such as dynamite.

Conversely, a firearm designed and functioning as intended, is more of a “dangerous weapon”!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

· Big difference, in my view.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

They certainly should if the tanks are introduced into the stream of commerce defectively designed or installed.

Why should a gun manufacturer be sued over a perfectly designed and functioning firearm sold with warnings galore about safe handling and storage?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Well yes and no, as panther has already pointed out. Then again, handguns are seen by responsible owners as “fight stoppers”_ and if some sociopath punk bent on sodomizing your wife while making you watch, should die while being stopped by a bullet, then such an unintended “killing” is not wrong, morally or legally.




------------------
Van Canna

[This message has been edited by Van Canna (edited May 06, 2001).]

By JOEL STASHENKO, Associated Press
Last updated: 12:15 p.m., Thursday, April 26, 2001

Court says gun manufacturers not liable

ALBANY -- Handgun manufacturers cannot be held liable for shooting deaths and injuries suffered by seven people because of the supposedly negligent way the weapons were marketed and distributed, the state's highest court ruled Thursday.

The Court of Appeals decided 7-0 that the chain linking gun makers with the seven individuals is too tenuous legally to ascribe liability to the manufacturers.

At the least, links in that chain include the manufacturer, federally licensed distributors or wholesalers and at least one retailer, the court said in a ruling written by Judge Richard Wesley.

``The chain most often includes subsequent legal purchasers or even a thief,'' Wesley said.

With every gunshot victim or their survivors a potential litigant against gun manufacturers, more evidence of negligence on the part of gun makers toward gun violence victims must be established than was involved in the matter before the court, Wesley said.

The court's ruling likely dooms verdicts won in federal court in New York City against 15 handgun manufacturers for failing to use reasonable care in the distribution of their guns. The claims were brought by seven victims of gun violence or their survivors.

Nine gun makers were found to have ``proximately'' caused the deaths of two of the victims, but no damages were awarded in those cases. A jury did award damages against three defendants, American Arms, Beretta USA and Taurus International Manufacturing.

In one of those cases, Stephen Fox, shot by a friend and permanently disabled, won a $4 million judgment on behalf of himself and his mother.

Gun manufacturers appealed. A federal appeals court hearing the cases asked the state Court of Appeals to clarify whether New York law supports a negligent marketing claim in the case of handgun makers.

Wesley noted in his ruling that the Court of Appeals has historically been cautious about extending liability to individuals or companies for the conduct of others. The court has done so only in limited circumstances, such as making parents liable for some actions of their children, Wesley said.

``This judicial resistance to the expansion of duty grows out of practical concerns both about potentially limitless liability and about the unfairness of imposing liability for the acts of another,'' Wesley said.

Extending liability to gun manufacturers for negligent marketing practices would be a huge step, the judge said, potentially encompassing everyone who has been injured by handguns or the survivors of people who have been killed.

Wesley said lawyers for the gunshot victims in these cases alluded to ``broad'' and ``general'' ways that gun manufacturers are liable for handgun injuries, but they failed to show specifically how their sales and marketing led to their guns getting into the wrong hands.

A ``more tangible'' direct link is needed to show how the gun makers contributed to the injuries of gunshot victims and that the manufacturers ``were realistically in a position to prevent the wrongs,'' Wesley wrote.

His ruling left the door open a crack to future similar claims, however. Wesley said while the cases before the court failed, ``tort law is ever changing.'' It is conceivable that negligent handgun marketing could be proven in a different case with a different set of circumstances, he said.

``This case challenges us to rethink traditional notions of duty, liability and causation,'' he wrote.

The court Thursday also found that it was not acceptable to ascribe a ``market share'' of liability to gun makers. Under that practice, all manufacturers of a product are assessed damages according to the share of the market they enjoy.

In the Fox case, the gun involved in the shooting was never found and the shooter could not recall what brand it was, court papers showed. The federal court thought that justified spreading liability to all gun makers.

Wesley said it was inappropriate to extend liability across the board, however.

Here is another use of firearms other than "for killing" __

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Here is something worth checking out:

**

Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns
J. Neil Schulman


'Mr. Schulman's book is the most cogent explanation of the gun issue I have yet read. He presents the assault on the Second Amendment in frighteningly clear terms. Even the extremists who would ban firearms will learn from his lucid prose.'
--Charlton Heston

'He has truly helped change my mind on guns and self-defense.'
--Dennis Prager, author of Think A Second Time

Did you know that every 13 seconds one of America's 70 million gun owners uses a firearm in defense against a criminal? That American women use handguns 416 times a day in defense against rapists, which is a dozen times more often than rapists use a gun? That a gun kept in the home for protection is 216 times as likely to be used in defense against a criminal than it is to cause the death of an innocent victim in that household?

These are just a few of the surprises this book has in store for anyone whose belief in gun control is based on TV news or popular magazines.

Award-winning novelist, screenwriter, and journalist, J. Neil Schulman, challenges the misinformation that pundits ranging from network anchors to ill-informed doctors are promoting about guns.

Especially for the reader who doesn't own a gun and has never even considered buying one, Stopping Power should be an eye-opener.

Three stars from the Los Angeles Daily News

'A thought-provoking and refreshingly broad discussion of issues that too often receive shallow treatment in mass media reports about gun-control proposals...Readers who haven't staked out a position on either side of the gun debate will find this volume provides some eye-popping reasons to evaluate or reconsider the assertions they hear on the topic.'
--Mike Comeaux, Los Angeles Daily News

'Schulman's reasoning powers are superb, and he uses them to cut through the bunk that clouds the issue.'
--Aid & Abet Police Newsletter

'The most delightful thing about this book--besides the frequent humor and often hilarious sarcasm--is the utterly unapologetic attitude Schulman takes toward the right to keep and bear arms.'
--Alan Bock, Orange County Register

'Much of value in the book, especially Mr. Schulman's incisive critiques of the factoids, misleading rhetoric, and outright lies of the anti-gun lobby.'
--Jacob Sullum, National Review

'His research is impeccable. Nobody expresses the other side better.'
--Michael Jackson, KABC Radio

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FIRECHILDE:
[B]Here is reminder of why The United States of America was the greatest nation ever. It is called the Bill of Rights.

While I appreciate the sentiment, I have long maintained that not only don't we _need_ the "Bill of Rights", we are actually harmed by it. By enumerating the special restrictions on government (and calling it a Bill of _Rights_), the People have given a potent weapon to their would-be masters.

The perception of the Bill of Rights (Amendments 9 and 10 notwithstanding) has evolved into one of a list of _rights_ instead of a list of prohibitions (on government). This paradigm encourages the perception that if a "right" is not on the list, then we don't have it. It also fosters the notion that rights are _granted_ by government (again - 9 and 10 notwithstanding). It also makes people believe that rights are scarce and that we should be grateful for those few we have - because the government could take them away by simply repealing one or more of the Amendments.

Therefore, perhaps we _should_ repeal 1-9. 9 won't be needed if no rights are enumerated. We can keep Amendment 10, as it seems safe enough.

If 1-9 were gone, people would see the naked emperor. They would instinctively know that they still had all the rights they had the day before the repeal occurred, and it would dawn on people that they had all sorts of other rights, too.

------------------
--
Magic is practice

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yosselle:

I have long maintained that not only don't we _need_ the "Bill of Rights", we are actually harmed by it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I understand what you are saying, I don't think it harms us to have the government's restrictions on our Rights enumerated.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Hmmmm... I guess I just don't see that. Enlighten me. This could be interesting.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

As much as I wish I could disagree with this sentiment, the sad fact is that this a true statement. Shows just how far this country has gone down the slippery slope.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Again, I have to disagree. Everyone know we have the Right to drive, watch TV (and have a Nintendo/VCR), Right to a safe, secure and non-harassing workplace/school, and (for some people) the Right to have an abortion. None of those are enumerated, but everyone knows about them because they're on the "visual toilet" (TV) everyday.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

While I agree that the majority of the Sheeple believe that rights are granted by government (by definition, that would make them "priviledges", not Rights), I'm not sure that I agree with your cause and effect analysis.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Have to agree with this supposition. There's a local talk radio host that keeps saying things like "if they don't want us to have freedom of speech, they have to repeal the 1st Amendment"... Gotta tell ya, that really is starting to tick me off with him! I've called in and written numerous e-mail to the guy, but he still just doesn't seem to get it. What's really bothersome is that with his huge listening audience, he's just spreading that misinformation around to the masses.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Again, I'm not so sure I can agree with this concept, even though I understand your reasoning. I just don't think it's a wise decision to remove any restrictions on government. (Forget for a moment that those restrictions are routinely ignored. )


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Hey, nice analogy! I guess I'm just a little too cynical to believe that the people will actually wake up at that point. I don't think that the people will wake up until it's too late... and in fact, sometimes I wonder/fear that it is already too late.



[This message has been edited by Panther (edited May 07, 2001).]

Panther,

First of all, I usually agree with what you post and I enjoy reading what you you have to say. You lean a little farther to the right then I do, but we are both RIGHT . At least that is what I try to tell everyone.

Anyway, I see your point about how the job goes unappreciated just like many other jobs. But what bothers me are the general blanket statements like "those government police types". What's that about? BTW I understand you didn't write it, but that is what my post was about. I think statements like that breed contempt and distrust for police officers. It's a vicious cycle. We see bad cops on TV (must be true) or read bad things about them on the Internet, and associate all cops with them. Then we have run ins with the police, remember what we saw/read, hassle cop. We just made a hard job even harder. But, he/she deserves it, right. WRONG. We just hassled the guy/gal who has spent four years in college, 19 weeks in the police academy, and intends on being the one who makes a difference. Guess what's going to happen next time, we'll be proven right. All cops ARE *****s. I knew it all along.

As for you not living in Florida, I'm sorry for you. I did realize that when I wrote it. I was just trying to keep it light. Did anyone pick up on the Jimmy Buffet reference?

PS…. I thought you would appreciate that bill that Gov. J Bubba signed. As for those "Floridians" that weren't able to vote. They're really not from Florida. They're retirees from up north. They came were its warm…unfortunately




------------------
You can't fight if my thumb is in your eye.

talleyuechi@earthlink.net