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

Bert Hyman wrote:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Krulick) wrote in news:3FCCA746.8AF603F1
> @krulick.com:
> 
> > No, Silly Snout.
> 
> Hmmm... that's quite a strong argument you present.

That's quite a bit of bogus ironic straw you spout, snipmeister!

IF that were ALL I'd presented, you'd likely be right. 

But YOU merely snipped away what WAS my argument, as if I hadn't
stated it, and then made your strawman statement!

Behold what you disingenuously snipped away, as if I hadn't said
it:

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!
 
> --
> Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Thanks for showing us how you are a disingenuous waste of
electrons!

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