Re: church/state seperation

On 2 Dec 2003 20:57:13 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Will) wrote:

>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose searle) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > On 30 Nov 2003 22:00:13 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose
>> > searle) wrote:
>> > 
>> > >> I am rejecting
>> > >> your absurd idea that the amendment makes legal armed insurrection
>> > >> against the state.
>> > >
>> > >The idea that the people have the right and duty to alter or abolish a
>> > >tyrannical government is not MY idea. It was Jefferson & friends.
>> > >Furthermore, the idea that the second amendment is largely based on
>> > >this sentiment is the view of constitutional scholars with much better
>> > >credentials than yours or mine.
>> > >
>> > >Searle
>> > 
>> > And you still fail to quote one law or court decision to back up your
>> > absurdity, preferring to continue to babble.
>> 
>> Please quote one law or court decision that explicitly states that I
>> have the right to drive down to the 7-11, buy a bag of Utz potato
>> chips, bring them home and eat a turkey sandwich with those potato
>> chips, while watching TV and drinking a Hawaiian Punch.
>> 
>> Guess what: you won't find any "court decision" that explicitly states
>> I have the right to do all that.
>> 
>> Guess what else: I still have the right to do it.
>> 
>> In short, your logic is terribly flawed.
>
>You're right, the Second Amendment is based, on the idea that a
>militia was necessary to fight off savages, foreign marauders, or a
>government that had had become tyrannical (this last was more of an
>afterthought, but it was there). 

Where was it?  It certainly is not in the amendment.


So what? No one believes in it and
>there's been a tacit conspiracy to ignore it, except in the case of
>hand guns, for a good part of the 20th century.

It is fairly easy to ignore something that is not there.


>
>The Amendment is completely permissive. It was written before the turn
>of the 19th century and it allows the citizenry to possess all the
>armaments that any army of its time would have, from bayonettes to
>canon. It is still just as permissive. According to the Second
>Amendment, I have the absolute right to set up a perimeter around my
>home, just as I would have in Vietnam -- razor edge concertina wire,
>anti-personnel mines, 50 caliber machine guns, a few Claymores, a ring
>of M-16s, a ton of grenades, and, of course, a few canon and recoiless
>rifles. Wouldn't you want your next door neighbor to set himself up
>like that? Wouldn't you support his right to do so to the last drop of
>blood?  Hell, that Amenment allows me to own nuclear weapons, if I can
>find them. Don't you support my right to own and use nuclear weapons?
>Don't you think the government should offfer them for sale to its
>citizens?  If you don't, you don't believe in the Second Amendment,
>either, so shut up.

The words "a well ordered militia" are the words usually ignored.  It
is not granting individuals unlimited rights to possess any weapons.
It is not about individuals but well ordered militias.  I doubt very
seriously that the men like those who fought against the state in
"Shay's Rebellion" would past muster in court as a well ordered
militia.


None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.