Re the claim as to the content of the Second Amendment:

Didn't the thread for selective/partial interpretation die out yesterday?

Al Karman
IT Consultant
US Freightways
[log in to unmask]
773.824.2284


-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Cook [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 3:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] e-commerce in hype-rdrive


Well stated, Winston.

I would only amend the last sentence to read "It simply recognizes
preexistent or natural_ rights which shall not be tampered with
("infringed")." In regards to the Second Amendment, a natural right would be
the right of self defense and defense of family.

Lou Cook


-----Original Message-----
From: Winston Kriger [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 12:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] e-commerce in hype-rdrive

  Also, I noticed some confusion in this thread about "powers" and "rights".
Governments have enumerated "powers", whereas "people" have "rights".   The
Supreme Court has also ruled that the
word "people" in amendments 1,2,4,9, and 10 refer to the same "people" --
not to Government institutions -- such as the National Guard.    The
"people" are citizens of the United States not convicted of a Felony.  Ever
since Josh Sugarman and Sarah Brady started the hoax about the 2nd amendment
awarding the National Guard the right to "keep and bear arms", the mass
media has repeated that big lie again and again until some folks actually
believe it's true (See "Mein Kampf" for details on the technique).   The
"rights" of the "people" predate the US Constitution and
come from the English Constitution and Common Law.  The Bill of Rights does
not create any rights.  It simply recognizes rights which shall not be
tampered with ("Infringed").