Darn, I missed this one. My fellow 2nd amendment advocates did a good job. :)
Who needs 1984 when you have the NY Times everyday. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lon Lentz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 2:09 PM Subject: RE: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban) > The Constitution states that the Congress will not maintain a standing > army past 2 years (war notwithstanding). It seems to violate the > Constitution everytime it passes a military appropriations bill (this > contrasted with the fact that the Constitution says that Congress WILL > maintain a Navy). To the writers and signers of the Constitution, there was > a difference between a state maintained army and a militia. And what is your > definition of "well regulated"? > > But that has no effect on my argument. The definition that everyone is the > militia can come with laws requiring certains things of that militia. > Requirements such as what weapon to own, how to maintain it, what equipment > to own, etc. As a Libertarian, I accept that part of the responsibility of > being a citizen of this free society is the duty to defend it in time of > need. > > > >Cheap shot that. I could have said that Mein Kampf may be a fantasy > >of the right wing. > > And a dreadful read. ;') You may be right. I'm not right wing. I'm > Libertarian. I think that both "sides" are wrong. > > > >> > >> From dictionary.com [regulated]: 3. To adjust (a mechanism) for > accurate > >>and proper functioning 4. To put or maintain in order > >> > >> So, read that phrase as "A[n accurate and properly functioning] > militia, > >>being necessary to the security of a free state..." Or, "A[n orderly] > >>militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." So, our > >>forefathers realized that in order to have a proper functioning militia, a > >>militia of the citizens, they would need guns, in their PRIVATE > possession. > >>Why in private possession? Because the milita is us, the individual. > >> > >> Here is my state's Constitution on the definition of militia: > > > >Irrelevant. The Constitution supercedes any state's constitution. > >that has been well established since the whiskey rebellion of 1790, > >and further reinforced by that minor fracas known as the American > >Civil War. > > I fully support the federal Constitution's preemption. I included my > state's definition of militia because it's based on (or was based at the > time it was written), the general, widely held belief of what a militia is. > > > My argument was made above. I was quoting men of the time to help bring > definition. I do not use other people's statements to make my arguments. I'm > not a Constitutionalist's Ditto Head. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
