<![CDATA[My argument hinges on "the right of the people".
However in answer to your question, look at the misuse of the national guard
during the 60's, to kill students and protestors. The 82nd Airborne was on
the streets of D.C.
Crazy.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 1:54 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Clark to run for president
Tim, I think your argument hinges on "<!---->the security of a
free State".
And the question you seem to be asking is, what happens when the "well
regulated militia" in the form of any branch of the U.S. military is acting
counter to the goal of "the security of a free State".
That's generally been my question as well.
-Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Heald
To: CF-Community
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 12:48 PM
Subject: RE: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Clark to run for president
I apologize for my military statements then sir. I still think we
disagree. I really don't believe in any firearms legislation.
Tim
BTW what mos where you? Just wondering.
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:32 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Clark to run for president
Actually, I am not anti-gun at all, and as for the uniform, I am Retired
Army
M/Sgt.
Yes I had weapons around the house when the kids were growing up and they
were
both taught safety, one is currently in the Navy.
As to the current, no, I don't own any firearm, but not for any particular
reason.
As for the definition of the militia, I have always thought of it as every
able-bodied person.
I am amused by those pro-gun types that just do not ever want to connect the
phrase "Well regulated" (which I consider as mandatory training, etc) and
the
right to bear arms. I am also amused by government efforts to abuse the
term
"Well regulated." I would support compulsory service, however.
Rarely do I see the ancillary writings and thoughts of the framers used to
properly define the intent of this passage, but in a sense I will agree with
you, that the thinking was defense against the British, as opposed to the
violent overthrow of our own government.
I don't really think we are on opposite sides of this issue.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Heald
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 7:46 PM
Subject: RE: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Clark to run for president
Actually it starts with that phrase, not ends with it.
"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."
Ok, so first it says:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"
Ok, I buy that. We need a localized defense force in order to remain free.
I am a member of what we now call that defense force, the National Guard
(even though it is no longer locally controlled and can be called into
federal service at any time, therefore negating the check against the
federal government).
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"
Ok, so this is a right of the people? Or is it? Does this mean that all of
these other personal rights we take for granted are not personal rights,
rather are rights of the state?
You know what Doug, you didn't even know the order of the amendment. I have
doubts as to whether you have read what the men who wrote the document had
to say about the issue, or I would fail to see how you could make such a
statement, and expect it to be taken as a serious part of the gun debate. I
love how the anti-gun people seem to either never have read the writings of
the men that founded this nation, or think that they can be ignored as an
indicator of the intent of this amendment.
SO I ask you Doug, who is the militia? Why it is all men, and this age of
equality I would think it would include all women, over the age of 18.
That's in there to you know. When was the last time you put on the uniform?
Not saying you haven't ever, but when was the last time you did it? DO you
own a rifle and 100 rounds the way your supposed to? No that would be far
to much personal responsibility, I mean christ you might have to teach your
child some gun safety, or take precautions to insure they couldn't gain
access to the weapons.
hehehe, btw man, I really have nothing against you personally, and I totally
enjoy this debate. Take what I say in the manner intended.
Let's remember kids, it's not societies responsibility to educate us.
Simply because some talking head, or politician, or judge says something is
true doesn't make it so. You might not like guns. You might think they
should all be taken away, but if you look into it there is no way you can
deny that the framers fully intended that the American Citizen be armed.
The individual was the basis of their entire ideology. Personal rights were
just that, the rights of man (and woman).
Tim - A member of the people
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 4:04 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Clark to run for president
The rest of the sentence is "well regulated militia" which debunks that
argument.
======================================
Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway!
For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com
Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases.
ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772
Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf
======================================
If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
----- Original Message -----
From: Heald, Tim
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Clark to run for president
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.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 3:15 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: BREAKING NEWS: Gen. Clark to run for president
> Hey Mike I didn't think you were anti gun. From past debates I always
> thought you were a bit pro gun, just not for you. Are you anti-gun?
I'm pro gun for those who will use them effectively. Cops should have guns.
Soldiers should have guns. Criminals with guns should have caskets.
People who have had the proper training should be allowed to have guns. I
should
be allowed to have a gun. I should also be smart enough not to have a gun
near
my children, know how to care for it (i.e lock it up and all) and know to
teach
my children not to play with guns (real or not).
I even think people should be allowed to have rifles (there is a
difference).
On
the other hand, I don't believe people should have access to assault
weaponry.
Shooting Bambi at 100 meters with a Winchester is sport or lunch. Shooting
Bambi
with an ak47 at full auto is hamburger and sloppy.
I love the quote because it targets a specific segment of the gun market,
the
big dick replacements. But then again, I'm a firm believer in percise usage
of
resources if possible. An assault rifle is not percise. It's a scatter shot
approach to enhancing once chances of hitting a target.
>
>
> I'm reading it now. I love what he said about gun control:
>
> "If you are the type of person who likes assault weapons, there is a place
> for you -- the United States Army. We have them."
]]>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
[
Todays Threads] [
This Message] [
Subscription] [
Fast Unsubscribe] [
User Settings]
![]()
