Melirosa and Ishvara:

Ladies, you keep me on my toes. I enjoy the sparring with you. ~ Roberto

By Roberto (152.163.201.181) on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 07:11 pm:

Ishvara:

I simply meant that in the Wild, Wild West men were the true tough and fearless protectors of their families, and had strong principles in right, wrong, and justice. The women of that time were also tough and fearless. They had to be. But, they also put their families first over themselves. ~ Roberto

By Roberto (152.163.201.181) on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 07:03 pm:

Melirosa:

A J.R. Ewing in a three piece suit is as dangerous if not more so than the cap backward wearing, pants hanging from the butt, tower of babel, hip hop thug, whether they are black, white, brown, yellow, pink, blue and all the assortments in between. With that melirosa we agree. ~ Roberto

By Melirosa (208.48.12.163) on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 04:56 pm:

ishvara-
i am glad that you understand the point that i am trying to make because it is something that i feel so strongly about. you have just as many sleeze bags, if not more, outside the ghetto. and i took great offense when roberto said that he would use military force to teach people in the ghetto how to live civil like "the rest of us". like the rest of us pertaining to whom? there is a hell of a big world outside of our ghettos with millions of people contributing to the crime factor and it is absolutely ludicrous to pin the majority of the crime on one group of people. what a generalization. stereotypes have and always will be the downfall of this nation.

By Ishvara (38.163.112.69) on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 01:23 pm:

Not directed to you Meli, just a little confused to what Roberto means by this statement "(1) I would like to go back to the days of the Wild Wild West. It was a time when men were real men and women were real women." As well as other things he posted.

I understand your point and agree with you completely. What you say is truth. Another point kind of related, many people have such gross misconceptions on what it means to be poor in this country. I watched something on this very issue the other day it astounded me as to the perception most people have concerning the poor. It's sick almost half of the people poll thought the people to be lazy, on and on with such ridiculous perceptions. They did a study and found that there are 7 million working poor barely if at all making it. They work physically really hard, for almost nothing, most can hardly put food on the table. They also said that the federal minium wage cannot support a family, it takes at least 35,000 for a family of four and that's providing bare neccessities. We punish the poor but rely on them for every menial task, it sickens me.

By Melirosa (208.48.12.163) on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 12:41 pm:

ishvara................not understanding your question

By Ishvara (38.163.112.69) on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 10:25 am:

Real women and real men?!?! Sometimes I just don't understand where you're coming from at all.

By Melirosa (208.48.12.163) on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 10:16 am:

roberto-
i DO NOT deal in denials and fantasies either. i live in a VERY real world where i have seen and learned much. i have seen and been on both sides of the fence, as you have, and my eyes have always been wide open observing everything around me. i am a very observant analytical person and not much gets past me. yes roberto, there is the scum that preys on the poor in the ghetto, drug dealers being the biggest offenders in my neighborhood, and yes there should be justice dealt to them for poisoning people and our children with that garbage, yes there are thugs who bully ride people into getting their way. BUT....there are thugs in the suburbs also and they where suits. they are the biggest offenders to the poor. they lie about bringing jobs and programs to the inner city that we never see, they come from the rich neighborhoods they live in to buy the drugs that they are preaching to others about abolishing and when it is time for our vote to count they are right there smiling and lieing about all the good they will do for the community, job and program wise and they never deliver. again i ask you roberto, where does their civiltiy and moral issues lie? are they any better than the average thug? they commit the same crimes....drugs, prostitution, robbing, lieing, cheating they just do it on the down low and in a sneakier fashion. so my point again being.....if you are going to try and show someone the light and lead them down the road to morality don't focus on a certain group of people. sometimes all that you have to do is look around you, within your own enviroment to discover dirt. i respect you roberto for standing strong on your opinions and beliefs and i am glad that we are able to have these discussions here. sometimes we are able to open eachothers eyes to different ways of thinking or looking at things.....and sometimes we can't.

By Roberto (205.188.199.33) on Monday, May 21, 2001 - 05:47 pm:

Melirosa:

I do not have much time to fully respond to your post (I have to get ready for school), but let me say this, I know some of my beliefs are not popular with most of you here, but I hope that in dialogue you can understand where I come from. This site is primarily a liberal medium, but that should not close off anyone from having discussions across the political, philosophical and the social landscape. I have lived to encounter many points of views that I do not approve, but I respect that person's right to speak them. That is what makes us a free people. I respect you highly, I hope that you can respect how and why I think the way I do.

Let me say this, "The Ghetto" as I define it is "dark town" whether its white, brown or black. Its anyplace where the negative experience is for people who live there whose dreams and aspirations are straitjacked by circumstances not their fault and those that are their fault. I came from the Ghetto. I was born there. I pulled myself up from there. Unfortunately, unlike the Ghettos all over this world, a high percentage of my own people would rather stay there than get out of there like many people around the world, who want to get out, not stay there and if they cannot get out, at least they provide some means for their children to get out. The small percentage that preys off those who are there are the ones I had in mind. Justice for those scums should be swift and deliberate.

The Black Ghetto, to be specific, is a cesspool for the white and black politicians who rely on the uninformed there as a voting bloc, but they never deliver the true jobs to those communities, except for government handouts being the prime payout to keep them pacified and to enriched themselves. True not all people in the Ghetto are criminals, but a high percentage are. They are the hard core recycled thugs who prey on their own.

The Ghetto is not the black community. There is the ghetto and there is the black community of professionals, educators, hard workers etc. And, yes my dear, there is the ghetto of the pimps, crooks, whores, no jobs, quotas, and government subsidies. I'm sorry if my thinking offends you, but I deal in realities and not in denials and fantasies. I can no more pretend that this microcosim is accetable for blacks in particular, than accepting Al Sharpton as President of the United States (that will be the day). Got to get to class. Take care Melirosa. ~ Roberto

By Melirosa (208.48.12.163) on Monday, May 21, 2001 - 12:15 pm:

roberto-
i would like to address the rather loaded statement you made over the weekend. "if i was a benevolent dictator, i would end the ghettos in america and apply military discipline to the residents from there until they learn how to live civil like the rest of us." i am a person who was raised in the projects of the bronx in new york city. while i realize that there is generally higher crime in the "ghettos", i am greatly offended by your statement, it was a huge generalization. everyone in the ghetto does not live like you may think. there are good, decent, people and families that live as law abiding citizens, hold down jobs, pay taxes and do not go around killing and robbing as so many people such as yourself may think. a lot of people that live where i came from are victims of circumstance, immigrants, single parents doing the best that they can, every day people just trying to make it. my family is a mixture. i have good and bad. i have family members who have been to prison, i have family members that are college graduates, i have family members that work a 9 to 5 every day and raising children in single parent households, you name it. we are not all bad roberto. some of the biggest crooks live in the best neighborhoods in the biggest houses. they make a living robbing people, but in a back door type of way. these people are the same people that i see driving through my "ghetto" in the middle of the night looking for drugs so they can take them back to their cushy home in the suburbs where no one is the wiser. they are also the same people who are driving through looking for prostitutes while having a wife and 3 children at home in the suburbs. where does their civility and morals lie? roberto my point being, if you are going to enforce "civility", you would have to go beyond the ghettos and into your very neighborhood perhaps. sure people in the ghetto live by a different set if rules than those of suburbia, but it still doesn't change the fact that some of the people who live in the ghetto have more descency in their little finger then a lot of people i come in contact with who come from "other" backgrounds so don't even talk to me about civility. you shouldn't make such huge generalizations roberto. besides the fact that you think that inner city people are the only ones who need a lesson in civility, it appauls me to that you would use military enforcement in order to "teach" people how to live. that is what fidel castro does to his people in his communist regime. what a close minded attitude roberto. i am truly surprised at you.

By Roberto (152.163.205.66) on Monday, May 21, 2001 - 10:41 am:

Wyatt and Kansascity:

It's only fair I ask about you, this is about me:

(1) I would like to go back to the days of the Wild Wild West. It was a time when men were real men and women were real women.

(2) I have several books I'm reading on my nightstand:

(a) Destined to Witness: Growing Up Black in Nazi Germany, by Hans J. Massaquoi.
(b) Next generation computers, by Edward A. Torrero.
(c) The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 2, by Edward Gibbon
(d) Information Warfare, by Winn Schwartau.

(3) I would like to sit down with both Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln and talk about race and interracial mixing in their time.

(4) Most unattainable goal is to find peace in myself.

(5) Proudest goal was helping my wife get her degree and certifications to be a nurse.

(6) My role models are Colin Powell, Bruce Lee, Ronald Reagan, and Dr. Martin Luther King.

(7) Quality I most admire in a person is courage to stand on a principle.

(8) My pet peeve is "no nothing people" who think they know every damned thing. The so-called expert.

(9) Tranquility.

(10) If I was a benevolent dictator I would would end the ghettos in America and apply military discipline to the residents from there until they learn how to live civil like the rest of us.

(11) I would bring people together through new revolutionary technology tools of enlightment. I believe in the technocracy melded with the old fashion Republic.

(12) A friend to me is someone with courage, cries little, and knows when to shut up and just do it. ~ Roberto

By Roberto (205.188.198.152) on Saturday, May 19, 2001 - 12:14 am:

Kansascity:

I love your inputs for numbers 4,6,7,9,11,12. You appear to be a woman at peace with herself. ~ Roberto

By Kansascity (209.242.125.41) on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 11:50 pm:

1. I would like to time-travel to the Holy Land in order to have had the opportunity to hear Jesus speak and learn ALL about his teachings. I would go for some healing too.

2. There are hundreds of books nearby but 4 that I have been recently reading are: "The Notebook" by Nickolas Sparks; "Excel 97 for Windows"; "Unto the Sons" by Gay Talese; and "Savitri's Way To Perfect Fitness Through Hatha Yoga".
a. I am re-reading the first book because it is one of the finest love stories I have ever read.
b. Reviewing the second book so I can help my oldest child help her father and step-mother set up their bussiness accounts in an organized database/spreadsheet system.
c. The 3rd book has taught me something about part of my own mixed-heritage. Lots of historical information.
d. Finally, the 4th book on Yoga is one I am using to try to lessen the pain of Fibromyalgia...(you asked!) :-\

3. I would like to sit down and talk with Jesus mother and ask her advise on some issues.

4. My most unattainable goal is to have peace of mind, stop worrying, and just be happy.

5. A long overdue goal I achieved was when I graduated last year with an AAS degree in Office Systems Technology/Legal.

6. My mother, grandmothers, and the nuns I had in school....are my main role models.

7. A person who knows how to have fun, feel real joy, and not be critical are qualities that I would like the most.

8. A pet peeve for me would be...doing all the work with no..or, very little help/cooperation.

9. More than anything, I want those I love to be happy and have good, fullfilling, satisfying lives with lots of love and joy.

10. If I had the power, I would abolish death.

11. I would bring people together for some barbecue and zedico (forget the spelling) music in the park.

12. A friend is someone you never lose just because you asked them for a loan of money. A friend is loyal, understanding, empathetic, helpfull, trustworthy, kind, truthfull, and would never take pleasure in your pain.

By Modulis (216.249.87.138) on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 03:40 pm:

Wyatt, you said you voted for Bush. Now I'm a bit confused here. How can you have such socialist and be so left-leaning, but vote for a Republican. I'm confused here. It seems that the Dems are more in line with your philosophy than the Republicans.

By Wyatt (207.106.60.190) on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 02:59 pm:

Roberto,

Although I am not an NRA member,as I was in my teen years, I support the personal ownership and right to own a gun(handgun or other type). I believe that it is another liberal assault on own personal rights and freedoms and another hypocritical stance by demoncrats.

I wish that these same demoncrats would argue for the rights of multircial families and interracial couples in equality issues, such as the national census. I wished they would worry about inner city schools and the violence there, instead of only dealing with suburban shootings. I wished they would get upset about redlining and white flight and racism within the demoncratic party and not point fingers at Republicans who are at least honest about their agenda.

One point, I don't think the Demoncrats are socialist, that is an insult to all good socialists. They are liberals, not progressive, not leftists, not about social justice or change. Not about political principles and fighting for the rights of the oppressed, fighting against hatred and racism. the Demoncratics are about sitting on the fence, playing moderate deal making politics, geared to appease the suburban white, politically correct centrists/relativists. I see them as the enemy of democracy and common sense and hypocrites to boot. Progressives and socialist are far more likely to take strong stands on the left(whether you agree with them or not) and are far more principled.

By Kansascity (209.242.125.53) on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 12:21 pm:

LAWS WITH FALSE INTENT: HATE CRIMES & VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT

SOME law makers...(I bet the ACLU got in big time on this one) who want to draft hate crimes bill legislation for African Americans; in addition to the Violence Against Women act... DO NOT GIVE A .....ABOUT special protections for either group.

The reason, for example, that a Violence Against Women act is wanting to be enforced is not to protect women....oh, no way...

It is merely to protect a 'human resource' to contribute to work production. Human resources are like property/capital aren't they?

The real reason for this bill concerning women is to enable the welfare administrators with their welfare to work programs the leverage they need to get the men out of the way so they can force more women onto the workforce, farm out their children to day care centers...(the child care/adult care industries are getting too huge).$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$(Why do you think so many of those elderly people who can still walk out of a door...leave the worst nursing homes hoping to never be found again?)

Impoverished men who refuse to allow the mothers of their children to go to work and want them to stay at home and care for the family are a thorn in the side of Welfare Reform/Other proponents.

When "Welfare to Work" administrators take away the choice to be a stay at home mom, many men become violent toward the mothers (women) of their children be they married or unmarried. These young fathers have the mistaken notion that they have control over the situation.

Often women who get caught in the middle of this tug of war between the state and their childrens father(s) have/or had an option (that most of them are never told about) which is to opt out of cooperating with the Social Rehab folks to collect child support and/or participate in welfare to work programs if these women have concern for their own safty and fear for their lives and that of their own children.

When women turn to the state or authorities to protect them from violence, they discover that no one is going to protect them. This suedo-safty option is more often ignored these days to the dismay of many women caught up in this trap.

Due to the vast number of impoverished mothers with children who are being caught in the middle...the Violence Against Women Act....is mostly addressed to their desperate situations.

BUT, It is not meant to help them or their children. It is being pushed to help the state have more control over their 'working capitol'.

True, there will be women who might minimally benefit from such a law but never to the true extent of what laws are really suppose to be about:

We already have too many bad or bogus laws on the books that are seldom enforced for the reasons in which the public thought they were intended.

By Roberto (152.163.205.56) on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 11:48 am:

Thank you Wyatt:

You are a man I could sit with for hours to talk with about the world and history. ~ Roberto

By Roberto (152.163.205.56) on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 11:45 am:

Kansascity:

Thank you, you have given me a lot to read over. As you know I'm a member of the NRA. I believe in the right to bear arms. Maryland's Governor Glending (if i spelled his name correctly) just veto legislation that would allow the NRA into those communities where there is high death rates with guns among youth to teach them gun safety. This is another liberal attempt to keep the NRA from gaining ground among loyal liberal constituency (culture war) from the Democratic (Socialist) Party. Their aim is to kill off any alternative thinking that is contrary to their own socialist thinking. ~ Roberto

By Wyatt (207.106.60.190) on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 11:39 am:

1) The missionary era in China, Africa of the late 19th century, early 20th. The lives of people like Pearl S. Buck intrigue me, because I grew up a missionary kid in Central America and I love the stories of great heros and servants. I also love stories of the sailors and fisherman.

2)Adirondack Stories; Race Matters-Cornel West; The Bible; and tons of political and religious magazines. I love the Adirondack Mtns and stories of the woodsmen and women who have braved them. I love Cornel West and follow lots of his Philosphy. The Bible--mylife source. I read, The Nation, Sojourners,The Progressive, Mother Earth News, Earth Island Journal, The New York Times(magazine, book review),Adbusters.

3)Jesus Christ, because I desire to follow him and hear his words for my life.

4) My biggest goal is to cross China by Motorcycle, hitchiking and living off the land. That is probably the toughest goal for me now. It is not unattainable though it takes funds and time, which I am short on now.

5) Teaching school in Latin America.

6)SEVERAL: Dad and Granddads, Billy Graham, Howard Zinn, Ralph Nader, JC Watts and missionaries, writers and activists.

7)Strength of character, principled living, faith in God, humility and openness.

8) hypcrisy

9) To be a stronger, more faithful christian.

10)Changing the hearts of human beings, that would solve most of the problems in the world today.

11)Sharing in heartfelt conversation, warm meals, loving assistance to the needs of the poorest, for play and fun and to love one another not based on color or status, but as people.

12)A friend who is someone that you share a common sense of the world. A person who cares for you as much as they do themselves. One who lets themselves become vulnerable. Easy to discuss things with, although you don't have to agree on everything. One who is loyal to the end.

By Kansascity (209.242.125.53) on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 11:33 am:

Roberto: FYI NRA IN KC MISSOURI-CONVENTION

There is an idea floating around today about the NRA wanting to talk to youth in inner-cities to educate them about the use of guns, gun safty, etc. But locals here would not have it at this point due to politics of course. BUT, I THINK IT IS A GREAT IDEA!

It was then suggested that inner-city residents contact the NRA for more information and request their literature.

And yet, Alonzo Washington, a young local activist in KC and for all his good intentions said today that the NRA should have been involved in curbing gun violence in the cities long ago without special invitation.
He complained about NRA only being concerned with white youth gun violence. (But inner-cities are too often closed communities only concerned with their own too). They do not want "HELP" if it cannot be trusted. They are only concerned with black youth gun violence. You see what I mean? :-/

Then a member of NRA addressed A. Washington's concerns by suggesting that it is entities like the KC School Board (which has facilitated and allowed the destruction of the KC school system by the way) and others like minded
(who cannot/willnot work across racial lines to problem solve over issues that concern ALL Kansas City peoples children) who would object to the NRA's presense in their neighborhoods teaching youth about gun safty....and no doubt...about the right to bear arms...(AND STAY ALIVE!)

Alonzo Washington is young and idealistic. He is involved with grass-roots efforts in the inner-city community. He also has various other things going on: I think he is working with the police department and AD HOC (Alvin Brooks) to help and assist black youth...
(but shouldn't it be ALL youth).

He is instrumental in getting "Americas Most Wanted" involved in a case concerning a young child that was found in a Kansas City park recently but it is assumed that she is from out of the area because no one knows her.

Following is the article in KC STAR newspaper which says something about what is going on here.
Alonso Washington is distrustfull of the NRA's intentions.
I think it would be moreso a PROACTIVE move on the part of caring people in the Kansas City African American community if NRA could/would do something constructive for the parents and their kids and not just one or the other. But, it is ultimately the parents responsibility to teach gun-safety to their children...other opponents of this idea say.
For example, a Hispanic woman said she is a member of NRA, that color has nothing to do with it. She said her kids know all about guns and gun safty and that they hunt and go fishing all the time. She thinks it is rediculous to bring 'race' into such a broad issue.

Well then, Why not have knowledgeable African American Men and Women (Parents) approach individually and/or as a group approach the NRA with their ideas about this and see what can be done...not what cannot be done? (Don't bring along non-proactivists).

Several years ago, one of our neighbors lost a family member in KC after the child had found a gun among some CD's and Videos at home. The child accidently shot and killed himself. No responsible adults were home at the time.

(Welfare to Work programs are very lax and do not always secure day-care for children who are then left at home alone to wander about till their mothers return home from their JOBs)
THIS IS NO LIE!!

In addition, no one was empowered or had the authority to step into that situation and prevent what happened. Many adults in KC are very fearfull of the children. Don't think the new welfare sytem as we know it hasn't got much to do with this turn of events.

Accidental shootings (along with intentional) are a frequent occurrence here over the years. No one is taking responsibility for anything. No one is taking charge ....but there is so much in the way of doing just that...

I do not believe this is a black problem or a white problem: it is everybody's concern.
For those who do not want to work together across racial lines then they should just get out of our way.......PLEASE!


THE KC STAR ARTICLE FOLLOWS:

As NRA convenes in KC, Second Amendment debate intensifies

By RICK MONTGOMERY - The Kansas City Star
Date: 05/17/01 22:17

A contorted, 27-word sentence penned more than two centuries ago lingers and swirls like gun smoke, its meaning today debated more than ever.

As the National Rifle Association kicks off its annual convention today in Kansas City, bringing as many as 40,000 members, new battle lines are forming. And high above the center of the conflict hovers that one confounding sentence -- the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights:

"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."

For decades, federal judges have resisted jumping into America's argument over exactly what that sentence means.

Now, a 1999 ruling out of Texas has made the Second Amendment a live ball, one that could be bouncing its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the end, scholars say, gun enthusiasts could score an unprecedented legal coup, securing individual rights that courts have long been reluctant to grant them.

At issue is the so-called "second half" of the Second Amendment -- that part about the right of the people. Does it mean any law-abiding individual has a constitutional right to own guns?

The NRA gathering in Bartle Hall says yes, absolutely. The group plasters "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" all over its literature and T-shirts. And its president, Charlton Heston, calls that right "the most rare and hard-won right in human history."

Gun-control advocates and many legal scholars say no, it is not an individual right. And until recently they have had federal court rulings on their side.

They favor the first half of the amendment, which they say merely guarantees a "collective right" of states to defend themselves from federal tyranny by maintaining an organized militia -- in modern-day parlance, a National Guard.

But U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings of Lubbock, Texas, single-handedly blew a hole through that interpretation two years ago.

Ruling that the Second Amendment guarantees rights to individuals, and not just to militias, Cummings dismissed federal charges against a physician who had brandished a handgun in front of his estranged wife and their daughter.

Thought to be the first time a judge has used the Second Amendment to overturn a federal law, the ruling is under appeal.


Future hinges on courts

At least two U.S. Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, already have hinted at a readiness to expand the definition of the Second Amendment.

The political makeup in Washington this year also has the NRA breathing easier. The group helped George W. Bush eke out a presidential victory and has a longtime champion of gun rights, John Ashcroft, running the Justice Department.

Still, the courts remain a huge concern. A barrage of liability lawsuits against gun makers spurred Colt's Manufacturing Co. to abandon sales of self-defense sidearms.

Should the high court weigh in on the side of individual rights, a flood of new litigation surely would follow in the lower courts.

Some doubt that such a change would have much effect on the thousands of gun laws already on local, state and federal books.

"No rights are absolute, and government would still have the larger responsibility of protecting the health, safety and welfare of its citizens," said Robert Spitzer, political science professor at State University of New York and author of The Politics of Gun Control.

Taken to the extreme, background checks could be ruled unconstitutional, cities could be prevented from banning handguns, and felons could carry weapons, though few observers on either side of the debate foresee the end of gun control.

"If a re-interpretation doesn't change the landscape, it would certainly change the conversation about gun legislation," said Dan Polsby, a law professor at George Mason University. "The Supreme Court has managed to dodge the issue for years."

He agrees with the NRA interpretation: "There's clearly an individual right -- everything about the Second Amendment says so."

Jonathan Lowy, senior attorney for the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, could not disagree more.

"The courts have said what the Second Amendment means: It gives states the right to have militias," Lowy said. "To rule that individuals have a constitutional right to possess guns could have tremendous implications. The fact that some trial judge in Texas went that way doesn't signal a trend."

There are signs of a refocusing, however, such as the 2000 edition of American Constitutional Law, edited by liberal scholar Laurence H. Tribe of the Harvard Law School. It included for the first time a section suggesting that the individual-rights argument should be taken more seriously.

"The federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification," Tribe wrote.


27 contentious words

What did James Madison and his constitutional collaborators mean to say with those 27 words?

"The evidence of the framers' original intent is mixed," said Michael C. Dorf, a vice dean at Columbia Law School and a supporter of gun control. "But courts very rarely base their decisions solely on what the framers meant to say in 1791."

There is little dispute that gun possession at the end of the 18th century was an accepted, even necessary, way of life in the United States. And the record makes clear that state legislators debating the ratification of the Constitution insisted on the need for state militias, manned by private citizens, to arm themselves as a balance against possible abuses of a national army.

Less clear is the chorus for an individual citizen's right to lock and load.

When drafting the Bill of Rights, Madison relied in part on rights outlined in state constitutions. Five of those constitutions mentioned militias but not the right to bear arms. Three granted a collective right to bear arms for the defense of the state. Two guaranteed individual rights, and four mentioned neither militias nor the right to bear arms.

Madison's draft included both "a well regulated Militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." But the House of Representatives deleted another clause designed to prevent governments from forcing pacifist Quakers into militias: "No person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms should be compelled to render military service."

Spitzer said the deleted clause suggested that the framers intended to focus the Second Amendment on military issues. "All the debate was framed in military terms," he said.

Individual-rights advocates counter that society widely accepts that most other provisions of the Bill of Rights -- free speech, for example -- apply to "the people" as well as the states.

"Civil libertarians support the individual rights recognized in the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments," writes law professor David E. Vandercoy of Valparaiso University. But with the Second, their "instincts are overcome by our fear of one another."

In the 20th century, the high court rarely touched the Second Amendment. Its most direct attempt at interpretation, in 1939, resulted in a ruling restricting sawed-off shotguns, mainly because a militia would not need them.

Justices might get another crack if the case of United States vs. Timothy Joe Emerson reaches them.

The San Angelo, Texas, physician was indicted after pulling a Beretta pistol out of a desk drawer and laying it on the tabletop when his wife, who had filed for a restraining order, showed up at his medical office with their 4-year-old daughter.

Emerson had violated a federal law included in the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, prohibiting someone under a restraining order from even owning guns.

Judge Cummings dismissed the charges and ruled that "a textual analysis of the Second Amendment supports an individual right to bear arms." The case now has been in the hands of a three-judge appellate panel for more than a year.

Regardless of what judges say, violent crime and public opinion will continue to weigh heavily on lawmakers. Just last week, gun-control forces in Washington embraced a new ally in U.S. Sen. John McCain.

The Arizona Republican is sponsoring a bill with Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut that would mandate criminal background checks for buyers at gun shows with at least 75 weapons on sale.

U.S. Rep. Dennis Moore of Kansas is co-sponsoring the House version. Moore said Thursday that recent school shootings had "transcended partisan politics. This isn't about Republicans and Democrats; it's about kids getting shot."

"With every right comes responsibility," the Democrat said. "Convicted felons, mentally ill people and unsupervised children don't have the right" to keep and bear arms.


To reach Rick Montgomery, national correspondent, call (816) 234-4410 or send e-mail to rmontgomery@kcstar.com.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All content © 2001 The Kansas City Star

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Anon2000 (207.218.73.69) on Thursday, May 17, 2001 - 10:10 pm:

wow, you want to know ALL about us, don't you roberto, lol.

By Roberto (152.163.213.186) on Thursday, May 17, 2001 - 08:38 pm:

(1) If you had the means to travel time, what time or era would you like to live in and why?

(2) What book is on your night stand right now and why?

(3) If you had a chance to sit down with and talk to someone in history or the world today who would it be, and what would you ask of that person?

(4) What is your most unattainable goal?

(5) What is your most proudest goal.

(6) Who is your role model?

(7) What quality in a person do you like the most.

(8) What is a pet peeve for you?

(9) What is the one thing that you want more than anything?

(10) If you had the power, what would you change in this world?

(11) How would you bring people together?

(12) What does a friend mean to you?

You are not obligated to answer any questions, just move on if you desire. ~ Roberto