Subject:
|
Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:50:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1259 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
It hasn’t been amply settled. You are not a well regulated militia by any
standard of those words. It’s a point you consitently avoid--you and others
cut right to the “the rights of the people to own guns shall not be
infringed”
|
Did you even read that cite again? Read the whole 3 message thread please:
**From Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia: POSSE COMITATUS. These
Latin words signify the power of the county.
Or yet again in other words: the power of the people.
**At some point those raising objections need to realize that the phrase “the
people” (i.e. freemen) is NOT actually equated with the term “a well
regulated militia” (i.e. posse comitatus) -- the suggestion is that since
the militia, or a posse comitatus, by its nature draws its numbers from the
people every freeman is supposed to keep arms handy to this purpose: to
serve in the miltia or to form a posse. If you used words like militia and
posse comitatus everyday as did the founders you wouldn’t have any doubts as
to the precise meaning of these words. That’s why guys like George Mason
made statements like: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people,
except for a few public officials.”
**“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms...” -- Thom. Jefferson
**In the final analysis, and I hate to say/admit this, but the Supreme Court is
not probably the best source of information as to what the 2nd Amendment
means because they are an interested party -- certainly, they want it to
mean whatever keeps the govt. in a position of power. As was feared by
Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the
rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the
militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” Edit: note the use
of the two words “militia” and “army” -- what’s the difference? The people
versus a standing professional army!
**” ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form
an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all
inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend
their rights ...” -- Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Number 29.
**If the federal govt. could ideally “regulate” our gun rights into oblivion,
what is the context of Hamilton’s statement? How would it be possible for
the people, the militia, to be “little if at all inferior” to a standing
army without guns? Doesn’t it have to be admitted that for the anti-gun
contingent to be right, dozens of statements made more than two hundreds
years ago would ALL have to be incorrect! The very words that allowed for
the ratification of
the Constitution in the several states would have to be false!
Asked and answered, Kooties. Deal.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
