[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--_NextPart_000_1063832300_CFX_iMSMail_157158051
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Reserves definitely DO NOT. They are 100% federally controlled under the
department of the army. The argument could be made now that the National
Guard is just an extension of that same force, now that they can call us to
federal service without the governors permission.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 5:43 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Clark to run for president
You all know my views and attitudes about gun control, but I could
agree with this. This is exactly what the framers intended,
"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 national guard, reserves etc definitely fit the definition.
larry
> > See I always have been of the mind that the framers didn't put the
firearms
>> right in there to allow us to hunt, rather to protect ourselves from
>> government, and if necessary revolt. That's why I think assault weapons
>> shouldn't be banned.
>Yes, they put in for a well armed militia. We've got a standing army now
which
>should supersede the militia in my mind. But lets work with the militia
idea
>for
>a moment. Should those in the national guard have access to assault rifles?
I
>think so as they would constitute a well armed militia in my mind. Even
those
>who have been honorably discharged from the military or who are on
>extended/reserve/whatever duty.
>Should everyone have access to machine guns? Yes, if they are willing to
join
>the national guard or other service to help in the protection of this
country.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=i:5:89165
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
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
--_NextPart_000_1063832300_CFX_iMSMail_157158051
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Reserves definitely DO NOT. They are 100% federally controlled under the
department of the army. The argument could be made now that the National
Guard is just an extension of that same force, now that they can call us to
federal service without the governors permission.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 5:43 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Clark to run for president
You all know my views and attitudes about gun control, but I could
agree with this. This is exactly what the framers intended,
"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 national guard, reserves etc definitely fit the definition.
larry
> > See I always have been of the mind that the framers didn't put the
firearms
>> right in there to allow us to hunt, rather to protect ourselves from
>> government, and if necessary revolt. That's why I think assault weapons
>> shouldn't be banned.
>Yes, they put in for a well armed militia. We've got a standing army now
which
>should supersede the militia in my mind. But lets work with the militia
idea
>for
>a moment. Should those in the national guard have access to assault rifles?
I
>think so as they would constitute a well armed militia in my mind. Even
those
>who have been honorably discharged from the military or who are on
>extended/reserve/whatever duty.
>Should everyone have access to machine guns? Yes, if they are willing to
join
>the national guard or other service to help in the protection of this
country.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
- Re: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Cla... Marlon Moyer
- RE: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Cla... Dan Phillips \(CFXHosting.com\)
- Re: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Cla... Larry C. Lyons
- RE: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Clark to run for... Heald, Tim
- Re: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Clark to ru... Michael Dinowitz
- RE: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Clark t... Paul Ihrig
- RE: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Cla... Tim Heald
- Re: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Clark t... Larry C. Lyons
- Re: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Cla... jon hall
- RE: BREAKING NEWS: Gen.... Tim Heald
- Re: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Cla... Tim Heald
- Re: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Clark to ru... Doug White
- RE: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Clark t... Tim Heald
- Re: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Cla... Doug White
- RE: BREAKING NEWS: Gen.... Tim Heald
- Re: BREAKING NEWS: ... Kevin Graeme
- RE: BREAKING NEW... Tim Heald
- Re: BREAKING NEWS: ... Doug White
- RE: BREAKING NEW... Tim Heald
- RE: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Clark to ru... Paul Ihrig
- RE: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Clark to run for... Heald, Tim
