Re: CAN THE STATE MILITIAS EVER BE ABOLISHED?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Mayer) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 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.

Leif speaking:  Maybe you have me confused with the Supreme Court. 
Incorporation is their game, not mine.  What they've done they've
done, without any incoragement from me. And I'm definitely not
supporting their incorporation of the Second Amendment.  I guess that
ought to take me out of your "racist" category.
> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 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.