To: Gordon A. Langston who wrote (4950 ) 7/15/2001 4:12:20 AM From: jttmab Respond to Gordon,not conclusive . I think what Miller has done, however, is to set a necessary condition of what arms are 2nd amendment protected. [I'd be interested in hearing the argument to contrary. I've asked a couple of attorneys on that, but Constitutional law was not their field and they declined.] That necessary condition runs contrary to the overall public perception. That condition also tends, IMO, to lend weight towards the argument that it is a collective right and not an individual right.That is, if one views the right to possess arms as a "fundamental right" -- and if it isn't, what is it doing in the Bill of Rights? Fundamental Rights ? I think that is a much more difficult question to answer than it would seem to be. Thinking a bit about the history, Madison submitted 12 amendments for consideration, the two that were not enacted would not be reasonably considered Fundamental Rights . I have never read anything that indicated why they weren't enacted [who would care?] Did Congress remove them because they wanted a document that was of fundamental rights or did it just happen? Was there a conscious thought that they were all to be fundamental rights or is it a modern day interpretation? The answer would be significant to your point.Maher v. Roe, in which several Justices (and many students) argue that the Constitution requires subsidized abortions for women who cannot otherwise afford them. So why not subsidized guns? then does this imply any duty of the state to make firearms available to those who cannot afford to purchase them through the market?...So why not subsidized guns?.....If one views guns as a practical way of protecting oneself from criminal violence , and if, as a practical matter, one cannot always rely on public police forces to offer such protection, then why doesn't the state have a duty to provide this form of protection to those who would otherwise remain vulnerable, such as those honest citizens unfortunate enough to be living in high-crime areas who are too poor to buy firearms? opinion determine what application of fundamental rights they are entitled to be provided by the State? Suppose it does, and I decide it's necessary to have an AK-47 within my neighborhood, based on the correct observation that the neighborhood is loaded with similar weapons. Anything less than that would underarmed. Is there any sort of a clear line that can be defined that would determine practical ?
