OT-What do you REALLY know about the Constitution?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

I am not posting this because I am a constitutional scholar. I am posting this somewhat in response to the thread on Delay, and as a reaction to many posts I have read on the old board and this one from those who state that "this or that" is constitutional or unconstitutional.

The biggest areas of discussion on this have been the 2nd amendment and the census. What amazes me are the number of people who post here who are absolutely certain they know how to interpret the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

With any body of law, there is the "letter of the law" and the "Spirit of the Law", and any interpretation of a body of law as pertains to any given case is often biased toward one or the other type of interpretation.

I have a hard time with those who post who come across as experts on the constitution. I suggest that people who post about this topic preface their comments by saying that what they are posting is their opinion. To state unequivocably that something is or is not constitutional, without reference to the body of consitutional law which supports the position, is without merit.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 30, 2000


It would be wise to take anything anyone says as opinion unless it is linked to some verifiable authority. Especially since the credentials of a poster may not be known.

-- Outta beer (East of the smoke stack@usa.here), March 30, 2000.

OIn ref the Second Ammendment:

the applicability of this to any specific firearm has been litigated only once, in 193(8 or 2) and the Dupreme court returned the case to the lower court with an interogatory and a description which stated that the weapons covered by the Second were weapons "that might be found at the time in the arsenals and armamentaria of the standing military". the case invloved a sawed of shotgun.

This is the one and only time the Second has been litigated as to the types of weapons covered.


-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), March 30, 2000.

Future shock....The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Now you oppose that freedom? Hmmmmmmmm, strange message from a constitutionalist......

-- ... (...@...com), March 30, 2000.


It was common for legal scholars to try to reference the "intent of the Framers" when interpeting the Constitution. This is done by reading the writtings of the people who wrote our Constitution when they discuss why thaey did what they did, or why they wanted to do it some other way. A large body of these writings can be found in "The Federalist papers" and "The Anti-Federalist papers". These are a collection of articles written by Madison et al when they were arguing for or against what they wanted the Consitution to contain. You should also have a dictionary that defines words in the context they were used in during that period.

This, of course, means doing your homework. Alot of reading indeed. But freedom isn't free.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.2all), March 30, 2000.

Whale----- Teach ME to trust memory of someone elses reference:
go here and read the more ACCURATE reference. It'll take all of 4 -6 minutes and will be an eyeopener for some.

for the cut n paste impaired

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), March 30, 2000.


-- awdragon (awdragon@yahoo.com), March 30, 2000.


What in my post gives you the indication that I am against free speech? People can say whatever they like, of course, but what I was asking people to do is to be accurate when they are involved in a debate.

I guess the easiest thing for me to do is to assume everything posted on this board is an opinion. Duh-Did I waste a thread??

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 30, 2000.


Great article,thanks,it's a keeper.

Future Shock,

Yup,treat everything as an opinion and if you want to truly set the record straight bring fact and evidence to the table.

Or,just argue like hell and have a good time.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 30, 2000.

Don't spend to much time on interpretation. The framers intended this to be an everymans law so clear and plain in the speach of the day as to never need interpeted. It is only with modern practices of law where everyone looks for hidden meaning because legaleze and loopholes are all the rage that this has come up to the degree it has. The current legal system intends to make us all feel like boobs in need of some highly educated wise man to bring the meaning down to us lowly surfs. Don't believe it when it comes to the original 10.

The government shall make no law infringing on your right to speach or press. It shall not declare a national religion and it won't keep people from gathering together or complaining about it.

Because we have the need to defend ourselves and each other we can't have the means to do so taken away.

How hard can it be to see this in the original wording. We talk differant and we write differant today. We need to ask an honest language expert, not a lawyer or politition

-- Just passin through (nobody@nowhere.com), March 30, 2000.


Nicely put!

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 30, 2000.

Thanks Chuck,

Thanks for the link. Needed something clear and concise to give to a judge, Justice Court, friend of mine tommorrow. We had a conversation today and he said "that it had been made perfectly clear to him by the states instructors that the 2nd ammendment referred only to the Nat'l Guard and he feels that we should only posess hunting rifles, in limited quantities, and that if we could really prove the need of and had the proper qualifications, we should probably be granted a permit to possess a handgun and maybe even able to carry it.

A very frustrating conversation.

-- Bill (dutch58@coldcountry.com), March 30, 2000.

The rights to life, liberty and property (the Constitution) and the pursuit of happiness (the Declaration of Independence) underpin everything with respect to the basic justification for a government in the first place. The government should exist solely to preserve and protect them. The freedoms -- e.g., of religion, speech, the press and assembly are really derivatives of the basic rights.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 31, 2000.

Bill (dutch58 ertc...)

Print out this thread's source (follow the link) there


and give him THAT to convince him.

alternatively I have a WORD97 version of it I tried to e-mail you last night but the addy you use above didn't go.

My address hasn't changed and is still rienzoo@en.com


-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), March 31, 2000.

The article Chuck presented is an example of what has become known as the Standard Model. Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the right to keep and bear arms is, as the Amendments text suggests, a personal right. See, e.g., J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo American Right 162 (1994); S. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (1984); Van Alstyne, The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms, 43 Duke L. J. 1236 (1994); Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 Yale L. J. 1193 (1992); Cottrol & Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L. J. 309 (1991); Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. J. 637 (1989); Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204 (1983).

In contrast to the Standard Model is the State's Rights Theory.

Other scholars, however, argue that the Second Amendment does not secure a personal right to keep or to bear arms. See, e.g., Bogus, Race, Riots, and Guns, 66 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1365 (1993); Williams, Civic Republicanism and the Citizen Militia: The Terrifying Second Amendment, 101 Yale L. J. 551 (1991); Brown, Guns, Cowboys, Philadelphia Mayors, and Civic Republicanism: On Sanford Levinsons The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. J. 661 (1989); Cress, An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms, 71 J. Am. Hist. 22 (1984).

Both the Standard Model and the State's Right theory claim that Supreme Court precedent, particularly the case of United States v. Miller, supports their position.

Like the scholars, the lower federal courts are split on the issue, although their split is the opposite of the scholarly one: most federal courts which have stated a firm position have said that the Second Amendment is not an individual right. The federal courts which follow the academic Standard Model are in the minority, although the ranks of the minority have grown in recent years. The courts on both sides, like the scholars, insist that they are following the Supreme Court.

I've studied the 2nd amendment arguments to the point where my eyes have almost bled, and I have no more conclusive evidence now of what it means than I did before I began. Those supportive of the Standard Model and State's Right Theory alike use inferences to conclude what was MEANT in the Supreme Court decisions. Although the United States v. Miller was the most recent case in which the 2nd amendment SPECIFICALLY was under scrutiny, there have been others wherein the Supreme Court REFERENCED verbage contained in the 2nd amendment, as well as the 14th amendment to make their decisions. The article Chuck linked cited Chief Justice Rehnquist's statement. Here again, those supportive of the Standard Model and State's Right Theory BOTH cite Supreme Court justices to support their positions, but it's MY understanding that only the Supreme Court RULINGS will be used to define the intent of the constitution. In fact, it's been made clear in SOME of my readings that the 2nd Amendment will NOT be infringed by Congress, so I don't understand why Congress was even HOLDING a meeting in 1982 on the Constitution. Congress DOES NOT define the verbage of the constitution.

I suspect that as the NRA continues lobbying efforts, more scholars will begin to agree with the Standard Model. As more and more scholars write in favor of the Standard Model as an interpretive device, the Supreme Court Justices will undoubtedly be influenced. They not only read these writings, but REFERENCE them in some of the decisions. So far, however, there are no Supreme Court rulings that state anything other than a sawed-off shotgun is NOT included in the "right to bear arms."

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 31, 2000.

Who really gives a flyin' flip what any court says about our right to bear arms? Let them flaunt their high falutin' lagalese and interpretations all day long, I don't care.Do they think we cannot read and understand a very simple document(of course they don't).

The majority of these so called scholars(lawyers)are only trying to fullfill whatever agenda they have set that expands their political desires/power.They, along with the intellectual elite believe they are better suited to understand the constitution,make our decisions,live our lives and set national policy than we are.

What a sanctimonious load of horseshit! When we start giving creedance to these bastions of superiority we can officially declare the constitution as DEAD.

They can have my guns,the day they pry them from my cold dead hands.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 31, 2000.


You said: "Do they think we cannot read and understand a very simple document(of course they don't)."

Personally, I don't feel myself capable of reading and understanding this SIMPLE document. Certainly, I can READ it. The language used wasn't beyond perhaps a 4th grade reading level. Understanding it is quite another thing. Consider the first portion of the 2nd amendment, for example: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," Are YOU a state? Does this mean a state WITHIN the United States, or does it mean a free state as it relates to an individual? [State DOES have two meanings, ya know.] I don't feel competent enough to conclude that the 2nd amendment referenced a state [as a subset of the U.S] OR the "state of well being" that a person may experience. It could be ONE or the OTHER.

It's quite easy for folks to interpret the constitution based on what they WANT it to say. I don't WANT it to say ANYTHING in particular. I simply want to KNOW what it MEANS!

Of course MY interpretation, and YOUR interpretation don't mean jack ANYWAY, as the Supreme Court has the final say.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 31, 2000.


My read on this is that the framers wrote or tried to write a document that was understandable to ALL,especially at that period in time because of lower educational standards,it was not written to confuse, IMHO.

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"

In this instance I believe it is clear,a state is exactly what it says,we being the United States.A person cannot be free within an unfree state.The right to bear arms is to ensure that we have at our disposal the means to thwart tyranny,if needed.

Almost anything can be twisted into different meanings,especially if you do not want to believe in what is stated.To use the word interpretation for something so obvious is tantamount to the courts allowing Clinton to redefine the word "is".

I must respectfully disagree with your statement, "Of course MY interpretation, and YOUR interpretation don't mean jack ANYWAY, as the Supreme Court has the final say."

Of course our opinions matter,both individualy and collectively,there are those that would have you believe that you should not trouble yourself with such things,that you are not capable of grasping the essence of such lofty topics,that is what they want you to do.

As for the Supreme Court,they can say anything they want as far as I'm concerned,because if laws are not obeyed the are meaningless,if through legal verbosity the constitution is distorted to achieve agendas those laws are void and should be disregarded.

Our country used to have a motto "MIND YOUR BUSINESS" it was even stamped on some of our early coinage,well the constitution is our business and I'll be damned if I let some snot nosed Ivy League elitist tell us how we should interpret what is plain as day.

Gotta run now,off to do 10 days of touring the southern states,but I'll not be far away from a puter as time allows.

Have a good weekend ya'll : )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 31, 2000.


You missed my point altogether. If YOU determined that the 2nd amendment meant one of the states of the United States, then you agree with those of the State's right theory, which means that you agree that the police or national guard are exclusively the bodies intended to have the right to bear arms in the interest of the STATE.

Further, the Supreme Court folks are NOT to be confused with the scholars who debate this issue. The Supreme Court folks are the folks who DEFINE what was MEANT in the constitution. Certainly they're INFLUENCED by the scholars, but their decisions are NON- debatable until the NEXT Supreme Court challenges them.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 31, 2000.


No, I did get your point but my point is that sometimes there is no need for THEORY,It nothing but a distraction,legal gobbelygoop.

Somthings are just too obvious to have to ponder on,in this case it is not what anybody thinks,it's what the constitution says.

Sorry,but I gotta hit the road.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 31, 2000.


If YOU consider the ultimate lawmakers of our country to be simply engaging in legal gobblegook, I suspect you could find yourself "out of fun" after a time. I understand the KISS approach as well as anyone, but I'm not one of the body designated to just say "Clear as a bell to ME!"

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 31, 2000.


Try to understand the purpose of the bill of RIGHTS. If you can do that the meaning is clear. It was meant for people, not states. The bill of rights was meant to limit government so why would it define a right of the people as belonging to any state?

And please consider that the statists will have hired help attempting to take free peoples guns and the hired help will do the dieing and killing.

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), March 31, 2000.

Hi Anita,

Sorry about intervals in postings,just got settled.

Question? How would I be outa fun? We will ALL be outa fun if some common sensen isn't brought back into the public arena.

Maybe the KISS thing just works for me,it is so obvious I can't believe we would even stand for it to be debated,what is this,a country full of hapless embiciles that can't make out the difference between black/white or right/wrong?I don't think so,I think most of us regular people don't have a shadow of a doubt about the 2cnd ammendment,it is only the politicians,the educational elite and those socialists who cry "it's for the children" with their hidden agenda's that seem to be directing the flow of "debateful" discourse.

Something I was thinking about today during my jaunt, why would you write something you wanted EVERYBODY to know,love and understand in some type of cryptic code? you wouldn't.

We are not talking about the greys,were talking about a group of people who were fighting a bloody war and who wanted to convey the mood and direction of the country through one/two simple documents.It was imperative that all could understand what it meant and would absolutely die for it if called upon.

Put yourself in another time and place and try to think about reading the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as someone from that era,during the turmoil with Britain.I cannot help but think that this will clear up the murkiness.

I'll be back!

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 01, 2000.

Most of the masses today could not read and comprehend the writings of the Founders. Pick up and read any of either the Federalist Papers or the Anti-Federalist Papers. If you understand all the alusions without reference to at LEAST a copy of Bullfinch's, it probably means you have had better literature training than 70% of the folks out there, or your contact is more recent than my 34 years (gads I don't FEEL that old). I had to have a copy of Bullfinch's and a Bible sitting next to me just to be sure I was translating the references right.

What does this have to do with interpretation of the constitution and Bill of Rights?? LOTS! The documents we are referring to were meant for EDUCATED men to read and understand. In this, the Year of Our Lord 2000, you will be HARD PRESSED to find ANYONE educated as well as the typical land-holder, who would understand references to Classical Greek, Classical Latin, Mythology, and the Bible, without having to look them up. AND would use them in everyday conversation. When was the last time you heard ANYONE reference Sysiphus, or Charybda. Charon is more in mainstream, but still, not everyday conversation to US.

Chuck, a pedants pedant

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), April 01, 2000.


If you understand all the alusions without reference to at LEAST a copy of Bullfinch's

We Bullfinchs spell that with one l : Bulfinch. Tom and Charles will be rolling over in their graves.

Best wishes,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 01, 2000.

Mr. Pinochle:

I'm TRYING to put myself in the shoes of the people at the time. Have you read this?


YOUR idea of sense may not equate to MY idea of sense, so I don't want to go there. It's easy to take a fuggedaboutit approach, and just take the words for what they mean TO YOU. Isn't that why Future STARTED this thread? Folks claim they KNOW how to interpret the constitution and its amendments. I DON'T feel I know how to interpret it, and haven't studied the history of the U.S. I was busy studying physics, chemistry, biology, math, and computer science at University. I didn't even need ONE course in P.E., ONE course in music, or ONE course in art to graduate. I took those courses AFTER graduation, so please indulge me while I take another in history. Is that okay with you? [grin]


I just mentioned Sisyphus in another thread this week. Charybda? Are you referencing CharybIS? [I'm beginning to FEEL like a female monster on this thread.]

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), April 01, 2000.


I haven't heard of either. Could just be me. I have heard of Charybdis from Ulysses. A gulf of a monster.

Best wishes,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 01, 2000.


Oops...missed a 'd' there. [I need to take a note to take better notes.]

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), April 01, 2000.


Don't feel bad. It just didn't look right. I had to pull down my 100 yr old copy of "The Age of Fable" and check. Most people couldn't remember such things. If they did, I would worry about them. Chuck may have been thinking about another character.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 01, 2000.

>> Chuck, a pedants pedant <<

Shouldn't that be: "Chuck, a pedant's pedant." ?

Brian, grinning, ducking, and running.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 01, 2000.


Don't be pedantic :o)....

Best wishes,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 01, 2000.

No, i had not read that article. I find it amusing that after more than 200 years, during a time when some people want to disarm the citizens of this country, one person is finally able to rewrite history just the way the gun grabbers want it. Now they can point to this mans research and say they have the right to do it.

This is a tactic that the liberal elites have been using for decades. Get anything published and some people will believe it. When enough people believe it or are no longer certain then they make gains because there is confusion about what is true.

Understand one thing and you will know what the 2nd amendment means. DO YOU WANT TO BE A FREE PERSON OR A SLAVE? If you can answer that then you know what the founding fathers meant. They were never going to be slaves ( ruled by others ).

If you are willing to be a slave, of any kind, you will decide to believe one thing about the second amendment. If you are free you will believe the opposite. It is really that simple.

Either you are for controlling people because of what they may do or you believe in controlling people for what deeds they do. One is the rule of law. Commit a crime and go to jail. ( Unless you are president ).

Anita, Think! Make a decision. Don't just choose sides. Do you want to be free? If you do want to be free how can you stand the best chance of staying free? Being one of many armed free people or being unarmed and trusting the wonderful folks in D.C. and your state capitol. Remember that the crowd in D.C. can change and the next group may have a different agenda. One you don't agree with. WHat then? DO you understand? At some point in time the pols (rulers) may not be nice and if none is armed they will do as they wish. Think about it from your own viewpoint, not what the books or pundits say.

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), April 01, 2000.

Mr. Pinochle:

I suspect that with this post I'll put this forum to bed for the night, as well as myself.

I AM thinking, and this ONE writer is HARDLY the only one with these thoughts. YOUR argument is that I should get off the fence and "get with the program", so to speak. You state that somewhere along the line I'll be dealt an administration of which I'm not in favor. YOU have a certain sense of urgency that I don't share....much like those who state "Buy guns now, because they're going to be banned tomorrow!"

I've lived WITH guns, and I've lived WITHOUT guns. They never changed my life either way. The truth be told, I don't remember an administration that I LIKED. I see no reason to conclude that there will be an administration that I like in the future. I see no reason to conclude that I'll need a gun in the future, nor do I see a reason why guns won't be offered to those with a desire to have them IF they meet the requirements.

There's no fear feeding me on this one. I can take my time and approach this from a historical perspective. I can include the opinions presented on various fora, such as your own, in my decision making. Thanks for your input.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), April 02, 2000.


Our ideas of "sense" may not be the same but do we really need scholars with esoteric dissertations to tell us what these two documents mean?

In all honesty I do not have the education that you have achieved but have at the same time have studied our history and it's early participant's lives to an extensive degree, this doesn't mean I am any more or any less qualified to understand the Constitution or the Bill of Rights than ANYONE else.

Just because someone has a PHD in history doesn't make them any more qualified than us to read a simple piece of paper.The idea that we should treat the constitution as if it were some mysterious parable in the Bible is IMHO just too preposterous.

There are those that would have you believe that there is some grand prerequisite into "understanding" the constitution,that for you to even attempt to understand it is blasphemous,SHAME on them and shame on the citizens for falling for this BS.The concept that only the annointed can truly comprehend these works is sad,in that many believe them.

Again,sorry for the lapses in reply's but am on the road several states removed from my last post.

See Ya!

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 02, 2000.


I think we're FINALLY getting to the bottom of our "disagreement." YOU'VE studied the history and I haven't. No one suggested that I NEED to study it to understand the constitution or the bill of rights, but I want to.

The differences in our approach are more geared to the personalities we've developed throughout our lives, I suspect. I questioned the meaning of everything BEFORE I went into the sciences. Of course concentrating on the sciences simply exacerbated this weirdness in my personality. The real fun [for ME] is not in the conclusion part. It's in the process part. Does that make any sense?

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), April 02, 2000.

My argument is each person has to make their own decision. Be free or be a slave. If you understand the purpose of the bill of rights you know what the 2nd amendment means. Period.

I don't care if you own any weapons. That is your personal decision. The choice of being prepared to defend yourself is a moral choice. The decision to defend our constitution or not is each persons choice. The important thing is to understand what the consequences are for each decision.

I may be wrong but your posts, Anita, indicate you want to research the subject and see which side has the best arguments instead of deciding what was meant and looking at which arguments support what was meant.

It seems clear the bill of rights was meant to limit the power of the government. That seems clear. Am I wrong? If that was the intention how could it be possible for the 2nd amendment to limit the peoples right to bear arms? How?

Yes there are many who agree whit the author of the article you linked to. BUT that is the first time I have ever read what he used to base his facts on. If I remember correctly the number of slaves at the time of the revolution was very small. The total number of people in the country was very small. Most of the country was wilderness. Most people were working hard to just feed themselves. His article attempts to make it sound as if there were these well organized militias roaming the south. Does't fit any of the facts I have ever read.

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), April 02, 2000.


Anita, Your last post hit the nail on the head. I started reading history more than 50 years ago. As I get older I have a base of knowledge that I add to. That includes looking for new evidenve pro and con. Learning something that disproves the facts of yesterday is delectable.

Sadly a lot of what is published today is opinion and seems to be written only to support an agenda. Life at the time of the revolution has been studied and written about ad nausium. My collection includes many out of print books written 30 - 40 years ago. When I have read in many sources the same data I have a modicum of trust in the truth of that data. Then to read completely new conclusions that don't agree with anything I have read before and does not agree with what was possible is beyond words.

Actually what was in the article is true except the militias for the purpose of supressing the slaves came into use many years after the revolution, in the 1800's. So he is using facts that happened in one time frame to support his argument of what people thought in a prior time frame. And it works, for everyone not having any knowledge on the subject.

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), April 02, 2000.

Mr. Pinochle:

I never said I BELIEVED what was written in the article I presented. It was one by Carl Bogus, right? He's definitely one of the States' Rights theorists, and I KNOW that. Due to NRA lobbing efforts, the majority of information on the internet is geared towards the Standard Model. I just wondered if you'd even ventured into what the States' Rights theorists had to say.

Your slave vs. free statement is meant to elicit emotion. When emotion is used as a starting point, the quest becomes one less geared toward the truth, but one geared toward proving the emotion correct.

Am I looking for the best argument? Yes. This is not to say that I am looking for the argument that SOUNDS the best. As you pointed out, an argument may be based only partially on correct facts. This is why each statement in an argument requires more research for verification.

You've already come to YOUR conclusion based on YOUR study of history. I will draw mine based on MY study.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), April 03, 2000.


To study the constitution is one thing but to try and systematically dissect it is quite another.I would assume that given your scientific backround analyzing and scrutinizing is the norm and that at the same time some findings are proven so thouroghly no further research is needed ie.the earth is not flat,the moon is not a planet,etc.

That is the way I feel about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Why some people feel the need to labor over the obvious is quite perplexing to me,unless the ad nauseum scrutiny is meant to twist and distort,this to me is very troubling because I take my,yours and everyones freedom very,very seriously.

I truly wish and hope you do read and study our history and it's documents but not to the point it is treated as a scientific quandry,it is not a dead rat,for it has a soul and a living and breathing body that we must fight for to ensure its longevity.

Mr. P,

Can you tell me the reference material you spoke of? I feel that my being a few(?) years your junior I might be missing out on some great reading and perspectives.

BTW,It's good to know that there is at least a few out there like me that see things concerning our history as anything but rocket science.Thanks.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 04, 2000.

Thanks to all who participated in this thread.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 08, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ