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

Diogenes wrote:
> 
> Steve Krulick wrote:
> > Scout wrote:
> >
> >>"ulTRAX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>>"Roger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>
> >>news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >>
> >>>>"Buckaroo Banzai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>
> >>>>>Steve, you can try and warp the meaning of those twenty-seven words in
> >>>>
> >>any
> >>
> >>>>>manner you like, but their meaning is quite clear to any
> >>>>
> >>clear-thinking
> >>
> >>>>>person.  The Goverment *cannot* infringe on the individual's right to
> >>>>
> >>keep
> >>
> >>>>>and bear arms.
> >>>>
> >>>>As long as they are part of a well regulated militia, you are right.
> >>>>Otherwise, it can, has, and continues to "infringe" on individuals right
> >>>
> >>to
> >>
> >>>>keep and bear arms.
> >>>>
> >>>>Look at the court cases. You're wrong.
> >>>
> >>>And since the government provides the weapons for today's well
> >>>regulated militia....
> >>
> >>Odd, I am a member of today's well regulated militia
> >
> >
> > No you are not. You keep making that silly claim, but you are
> > NOT a member of the well-regulated militia the Const recognizes
> > and that Congress must "provide for" the arming of; only the
> > National Guard today meets that standard! There's no requirement
> > that the Congress give the arms to individual militiamen, but
> > only that the militia's arms be "provided for." Certainly, it
> > doesn't require the Congress give YOU a a damn thing.
> 
> Another example of how Krulick misrepresents the Constitution, and it's
> meaning, to suit his purpose. 

Another example of how the anonymous wanker makes blatant
fact-free assertions without substantiation.

> It says no such thing as "must" provide for
> anything; general, select, unorganized, or any other kind of militia.

Again, your understanding of constitutional language is
laughable.

> The Constitution states:
> 
> "The Congress shall have power...

And THAT is NOT a suggestion or option! It is a declarative
statement of fact! It is a mandate, delegating the power TO
Congress, to the exclusion of ALL other entities!
> .
> .
> .
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining  the Militia."
> 
> That does not 'force', nor 'require', Congress to do so,

Au contraire! It is mandate! So concerned were the anti-feds
that the Congress would try to wiggle out of their requirement,
that the 2nd Amen was written JUST to appease them!

As George Mason dramatically put it:

"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been
practiced in other parts of the world before; that is, by
rendering them useless - by DISARMING them. Under various
pretenses, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and
disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do
it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them..."

"Congress has an exclusive right to arm them"!

And further:

http://alguard.state.al.us/faq/faq.htm

General Questions and Answers:

What is the National Guard?

The National Guard is one branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. The
Alabama National Guard contains both an Army National Guard and
Air National Guard component. The National Guard is composed of
reserve forces - civilians who serve their country on a part
time basis. Each state has their own National Guard as required
by the constitution - in fact, the National Guard is the only
branch of the military whose existence is actually required by
the constitution.

"Actually required by the constitution"!

So go suck an egg!

> regardless of what
> 'type', and, indeed, that Congress might not or, even worse, 'selectively'
> arm the militia (e.g. create a 'select militia') was a matter of much
> concern regarding the distribution of powers between the States and the
> Federal government.

And it was resolved one way in 1787, and another way in 1903.
Irrelevant to this point, though.

What the Congress decides is HOW they will "provide for" what
the Const says they must is up to them. 

> One such expression of concern by Richard Henry Lee:

Melancton Smith!
 
> "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves,

And, in 1789, THE PEOPLE was, as it is now, a term of art
meaning ONLY the enfranchised body politic of FREEMEN, however
THAT term is defined at the time, then being ONLY free, white
males of age.

With the exceptions of those males over 45, or infirm, or
otherwise exempt, the PEOPLE CLASS and the MILITIA CLASS were
pretty much the same, the militia being "drawn from the body of
the people."

> and
> render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.... [T]he constitution
> ought to secure a genuine [militia] and guard against a select militia, by
> providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and
> disciplined, and include ... all men capable of bearing arms; and that all
> regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless,
> by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military
> men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be
> avoided."

So he's arguing for a general rather than select militia. So?
He's NOT talking about an absolute fundamental right for an
individual to own or use a gun outside reach or knowledge of the
constituted authorities or independent of militia service!
"Capable of 'bearing arms'" doesn't mean "physically having the
strength to carry a gun"!
 
> >>and the government
> >>hasn't given me any arms...
> >
> >
> > Don't hold your breath. If you understood the Const and the law,
> > you'd not have made such a silly statement in the first place,
> > Silly Snout.
> 
> It would be nice, as a starting place, if you'd at least quote it correctly.

Show where *I* haven't! YOU have repeatedly failed that test,
like your bogus misquote of Jefferson, re no freemen being
disbarred arms! It was misquoted, out of context, not passed,
and irrelevant!
 
> >>Looks like you're still full of shit.
> >
> >
> > Wrong, Shitfull Snout. The Congress STILL provides for the
> > arming of the well regulated militia, just as it has for over
> > 200 years! And YOU are not in IT, and even if you were, Congress
> > has no requirement to give any individual militiaman any arms
> > directly; they are nicely stored at secure armories where actual
> > members of the well regulated militia may access them as needed,
> > just as Congress has determined it to be.
> 
> You've just described the Framer's worst nightmare.

Oh, then explain how they also passed THIS in the AoC: the
Articles of Confederation required that "every state shall
always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia,
sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and
constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of
field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms,
ammunition and camp equipage."

Go suck another egg.

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