Re: CAN THE STATE MILITIAS EVER BE ABOLISHED?

On 25 Nov 2003 22:51:36 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Rakur)
wrote:

>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Mayer) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> On 24 Nov 2003 15:52:45 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Rakur)
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> >Leif speaking:  The Second Amendment is NOT incorporated under the 14
>> >Amendment. 
>> 
>>      The "incorporatiuon" doctrine is nothing more that an attempt by
>> the judiciary to keep freed slaves and other minorities from being
>> able to exercise their rights and to allow states to generate racist
>> laws to that end. The 'incorporation" doctrine allowed the states pass
>> Jim Crow, seperate but equal and other segregationise laws.  Does Leif
>> support those sorts of laws?  Is Leif a racist?
>
>Leif speaking:  Pointing out that the Second Amendment has not been
>incorporated under the 14th Amendment is racist?  Wow!

     "Incorporation" is racist and you support that.

>> 
>> 
>> Presser is good law.  
>> 
>>     If you support the opression of minorities
>> 
>> The states, insofar as the Second
>> >Amendment is concerned, pass whatever kind of gun legislation they
>> >want. 
>> 
>>     Just like they passed poll tax and literacy laws to keep
>> African-Americans from voting.
>> 
>> 
>> The Second Amendment protects the right of the people
>> >collectively to maintain their own state militia even if Congress
>> >should fail to do its constitutional part in that respect.  
>> 
>>      So, you think that the Second allows the states to have their own
>> militias?
>
>Leif speaking:  That is the purpose for which the amendment was
>written. 

     Thjen why doesn't it sat that or do you think that the founders
couldn't express themselves correctly?

Today, in addition to the National Guard 

     The National Guard is a reserve componrent of the regular
military and NOT a militia.

a state may have a
>State Defense Force, which according to the Perpich v. Department of
>Defense fulfills a state's "constitutional entitlement to a separate
>militia of its own".

    So, a stste defense force is an entitlement now?

>> 
>> It's hard
>> >to see how that provision could be applied AGAINST the states.
>> 
>>     If the founders wanted to say what you assert they meant, why
>> didn't they just say it or are you also of the opinion that the
>> founders suddenly became illiterate idiots when the wrote this
>> amendment?
>
>Leif speaking:  The framers used the language of their day, 214 years
>ago.


     That you and others try to twist to conform to their own agenda
of limiting gun rights to an elite few.