No, the amendmant process is in the original. I am saying that if activist
judges were not allowed to read into the constitution what is not there and
never was there then we would have seen the wisdom of the founders. But,
with the right to seceed from the union, that was reserved by some of the
states in their ratification documents  taken away by force, there was and
is not today any deterant from activist judges reading into law what would
never pass in the legislative branch. Most of the founders envisioned the
states running the national government and not vice versa.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Salkin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: another shooting

Are you saying none of the amendments should have been passed?  Because I
see
a need for most of them.

Kat

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:33:55 -0400 "Barber, Kenneth L." <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> If we stuck to their constitution we'd have
> been surprised at just how wise
> they were and how well it would have worked.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trisha Cummings [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:11 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: another shooting
>
> Actually I knew that!!!  But given our current
> politicians who change with
> the tide - that's now slightly out of date. How
> could they know the future,
> and how things have turned out when they had
> only the past to use as a
> guideline.
>
>                                   Trisha
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Barber, Kenneth L. [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:10 PM
> > To:   [log in to unmask]
> > Subject:      Re: another shooting
> >
> > You know the founding fathers had a reason
> for the firearms clause in the
> > 2nd amendment. It was not to protect the
> rights of people to have a gun to
> > hunt, it was  not even to protect the right
> to have a gun to protect
> > yourself from criminals (even though these
> are legitimate uses for guns)
> > it
> > was put that so that the populance would have
> guns  to protect themselves
> > from,,,, GOVERNMENT.... OUR FOUNDING FATHERS
> assumed that a well armed
> > populance would overthrow a government that
> got too oppressive.
> >
> > Amazing what you learen reading the writing
> of  the founders, is it any
> > surprize that an opressive government either
> limits what you can read or
> > in
> > our case see to it that most people do not
> learn to read.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cleveland, Kyle E.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:26 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: another shooting
> >
> > Actually, most incidents of firearms homicide
> are not "avoidable
> > accidents",
> > but volitional acts of one criminal killing
> another criminal--generally
> > over
> > drugs--but it's doubtful you or I will have
> much luch changing the other's
> > rationale, true?
> >
> > -Kyle
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kathy Salkin
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:22 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: another shooting
> >
> >
> > I'm a gun control advocate generally
> speaking, not because outlawing guns
> > would make it harder for criminals to get
> guns - it doesn't - but because
> > stupid people legally get guns and stupidly
> kill others through avoidable
> > accidents.  I don't think we have enough gun
> safety requirements in place.
> >
> > That's not an issue here, though, because
> you're right, whether you have a
> > gun
> > to defend yourself or not would not be a
> factor in whether you could
> > defend
> > yourself against the sniper.  You can't.
> It's that simple and that's
> > what's
> > so scary.
> >
> > Kat
> >
> > > As much as I admire and respect your
> opinions,
> > > Kat, I really can't fathom
> > > how additional firearms legislation is
> going to
> > > help--now or in the future.
> > > Does this man, or any criminal for that
> matter,
> > > give a damn about THE LAW?
> > > Especially when the laws already on the
> books
> > > are unenforced, under-enforced
> > > or plea-bargained into impotence.  I know
> it's
> > > an old wheeze, but there's
> > > truth in the saying that "when you outlaw
> guns,
> > > only outlaws will have
> > > guns"--at least in our American culture.
>