Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

"Cole Firearms Inc." wrote:
> 
> Steve Krulick wrote:
> >
> > Scout wrote:
> > >
> > > "Leif Rakur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > "Leif Rakur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > Leif speaking:  Even in 1776 the militia was organized by state
> > > > > > governments, although not always very well because of the difficulties
> > > > > > of the times. But by 1789 when the Second Amendment was written, all
> > > > > > men capable of bearing arms (rendering armed military service) were
> > > > > > supposed to be enrolled in the organized militia, unless specifically
> > > > > > exempted.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well let's see, in 1776 not all militias were organized by the States.
> > > > > Certainly the Minutemen weren't, nor were the Sons of Liberty.
> > > > >
> > > > > Further it wasn't until 1792 that the militia act was ratified that
> > > enrolled
> > > > > most men (not all that were capable of bearing arms, just most) into the
> > > > > organized militia.
> > > >
> > > > Leif speaking:  The Second Amendment was written in 1789.  In 1787
> > > > John Adams had Published this descripition of the militia system:
> > >
> > > The opinions of John Adams, while interesting are of little interest since
> > > it is clear that despite Mr. Adams commentary, the federal government felt
> > > that the militia was not adequately manned. Hence the Militia Act of 1792.
> >
> > No, Silly Snout.
> 
> You really know how to engage in conversation.

You really know how to sidestep an actual conversation by
snipping away 99% of MY side of it and slinging bogus straw.

If you want to "converse" about the issues, then HERE'S what was
disingenuously snipped away; now, deal with it and stop being a
handwaving coward:

> The opinions of John Adams, while interesting are of little interest since
> it is clear that despite Mr. Adams commentary, the federal government felt
> that the militia was not adequately manned. Hence the Militia Act of 1792.

No, Silly Snout. Militia service was already compulsory
conscript duty in the states. The purpose of the Militia Act was
to fulfill the Constitutional mandate that empowered Congress
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed
in the Service of the United States," by spelling out exactly
HOW they were to do that. The organizing part said WHO would be
in the militia and who not, and how it would be structured. The
arming part, as far as individual militiamen went, said EACH
would have to provide HIS OWN particular militia arms and
supplies, even down to bags and cleaning equipment. The
discipline was the code and regulations that the states were
then required to follow.
> 
> So it's clear that all the available manpower were not organized into the
> militia since otherwise the Militia Act wouldn't have been necessary.

False and plain stupid. Each state's militia was already
organized and "universal." The need was to establish the NEW
consistent organization to allow for possible federalized
service, so that any and all militia units would be on the same
page, as it were, no matter which state they hailed from, when
acting under federal governing. The Militia Act was the
necessary legislation to flesh out Art 1, Sec 8, Clauses 15 and
16 re the militia, in keeping with the goals of the 2nd Amen as
well. Without the Militia Act, the Congress could NOT have
fulfilled its constitutional mandate!

> Further it is also historical fact that not all militias were organized by
> the States,

So you opine. But THEY, if they even WERE militias by actual
definition, and not just YOUR blatant assertion, were of no
constitutional significance. Some evidence other than your mere
say so would help here.

> even though they did exist, and did serve with distinction in
> support of this nation.

Cite? Proof?

Oh, I bet you think the "Sons of Liberty" were a militia! Not by
any stretch of any authoritative definition!


Gad, I don't know which of you two (you or Frenchu) are a bigger
asshole.

-- 
Steven Krulick / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ellenville NY 12428-130727