so how does unorganized militia equate with a well regulated militia? It seems that the two phrases are diametric opposites.
At 12:58 PM 12/6/02 -0500, you wrote: >Yes, it was written over 200 years ago, when militias were for protection, >law enforcement and protection from tyranny. > >However, it doesn't say you had to be in the militia in order to own the >weapon, now why wouldn't it say that? Because of the idea of the >unorganized militia was that all men (which would of course be updated to >all adults both male and female) where automatically members of the >militia. This was kind of the reasoning behind the draft, which I still >support. > >All adults should have been members, therefore all adults should be able >to own military weapons. > >Another point. I am in the national guard now. This is supposedly the >"organized militia" the constitution speaks of. So should I be able to go >buy an M-16 or an AK-47? I could be called to fight both locally and in >other nations, and called to do federal service in an active duty unit at >any time. So do I meet the requirements of the amendment in your eyes? > >Tim > >-----Original Message----- >From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:31 PM >To: CF-Community >Subject: Re: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban) > > >This was written over 200 years ago when militias were necessary for >domestic protection as the army at that time could >not possibly protect the entire US. So, if you were in a militia that was >formed for domestic defense then you could >own a weapon. As plain as it is written, the NRA still manages to twist >the original meaning to satisfy their own >agenda. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Timothy Heald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:23 PM >Subject: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban) > > > > OK folks. Snap poll: > > > > "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." - The second amendment to the constitution >of the United States > > > > 1. This proclaims an individual right. > > > > 2. This proclaims a state right. > > > > My rant will follow. > > > > Tim > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
