This could get the liberals howling!
 

Firearm abstinence is not an effective method of gun control. Studies have
shown that education along with the distribution of effective ammunition and
firearms training goes much further in reducing gun related injuries.

Abstinence is not an effective method of birth control. Studies have shown
that education along with the distribution of condomns and sexual
paraphenelia goes much further in the reduction of unwanted pregnancies.

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Robert Musgine wrote:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as
futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into
execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that
requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month,
that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the
yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the
purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as
might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle
them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance
to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.


Bob, your views are contrary to the long string of appeals court rulings
regarding this matter. - Incidentally, this particular country (the
United States) is NOT governed by or controlled by the Federalist
Papers, and our legal system is NOT subject to them.

Jim

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Dave wrote:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:20:03 -0500, Marty said:


Dave wrote:

Are you saying that you think that the "well regulated militia"
mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the same thing as "the people"? Or put
another way, that the American citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED
militia."

Merely pointing out some of the holes in your view of universal truth.

Move to strike the answer as unresponsive.


Denied.

How about answering my question. - Pretty please!

Jim

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Robert Musgine wrote:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as
futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into
execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that
requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month,
that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the
yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the
purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as
might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle
them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance
to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.


Bob, one thing is quite clear from the wording of the Amendment itself.
- It's that however you define the term "militia" (and most jurists and
case law consider it to refer to Article I militias) it is a well
REGULATED militia. - Strange how that principle is so often ignored.

Jim

This could get the liberals howling!
 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:50:04 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


It's so clear that you
have to be a fascist liberal to misinterpret it.


Well, it seems you have misinterpreted fascism. One of it's founding
tenets is anti-liberalism. It is a movement of the *right*.

This could get the liberals howling!
 

"JimC" wrote in message
t...


Robert Musgine wrote:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as
futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into
execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business
that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a
month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great
body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under
arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions,
as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which
would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be
a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and
loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Bob, one thing is quite clear from the wording of the Amendment itself. -
It's that however you define the term "militia" (and most jurists and case
law consider it to refer to Article I militias) it is a well REGULATED
militia. - Strange how that principle is so often ignored.

Jim


Well regulated.... Back in the days when the Constitution was written the
militia was well regulated. Nowadays, some people want to over regulate the
militia out of existence (that's their agenda!).

More laws apply to the militia today than did 200 years ago. I'd say it is
definitely "well" regulated and perhaps "over" regulated.

The question remains - regulated by whom?

Anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

"The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787,
states:

" A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. "

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National
Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by
William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed. "

Both versions are commonly used in official US Government publications.





Funny that both say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms() shall
not be infringed."

So explain how it pertains only to the militia?



"A well organized Congress, being necessary to the detriment of a free
state, the right of the people to wear clown costumes, shall not be
infringed."

So only Congress can wear clown costumes?

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:20:03 -0500, Marty said:

Dave wrote:
Are you saying that you think that the "well regulated militia"
mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the same thing as "the people"? Or put
another way, that the American citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED
militia."
Merely pointing out some of the holes in your view of universal truth.
Move to strike the answer as unresponsive.

Denied.

Ah, I see, barrister and Judge, therefore outright fabrications
regarding adversaries views are perfectly acceptable, to say nothing of
evasive answers.

Cheers
Marty

This could get the liberals howling!
 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances. "



I don't see how "the people" have freedom of speech. The way it is worded
the people can only assemble and petition. Now this is only "the people"
which is a collective term. It doesn't say that individuals have any right
to petition or to speak freely. I don't see any rights "given" to the
"press", it doesn't even say the press has free speech. What is the press
protected from or what right is enumerated here? I don't see any at all.

This could get the liberals howling!
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:50:04 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


It's so clear that you
have to be a fascist liberal to misinterpret it.


Well, it seems you have misinterpreted fascism. One of it's founding
tenets is anti-liberalism. It is a movement of the *right*.

I do not "misinterpret" anything to do with the English language. I happen
to be an expert on it. Fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or
regime that exalts nation and often race and stands for a centralized
autocratic often militaristic government.

Central, autocratic government is a liberal (socialist) ideal. Read
autocratic as dictatorship. It is far from conservatism which is considered
to be on the right in the current political spectrum. Today's conservative
movement is for smaller, decentralized government and a strict abiding by
the Constitution. I know it's difficult to understand because today's
so-called conservative seems to grow government like crazy but the
conclusion that needs be drawn is Republican doesn't necessarily equal
conservative. On the other hand, Democrat definitely means liberal. Fascist
liberal is a slightly more to the left version of what we see in today's
Democrat party. Believe me, Hillary Rodham is a fascist.

It is necessary to abide by today's definitions of liberalsim vs.
conservatism - i.e. left vs, right in order to have an intelligent
discussion. Your harkening back to some mythical founding tenet couched in
the past when the terms were defined diferently than they are now is a lame
attempt to misdirect the discussion. Now, go to the back of the class..

Wilbur Hubbard

This could get the liberals howling!
 

"Robert Musgine" wrote in message
...

"JimC" wrote in message
t...


Robert Musgine wrote:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as
futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into
execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business
that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a
month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great
body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be
under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and
evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of
perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated
militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public
inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Bob, one thing is quite clear from the wording of the Amendment itself. -
It's that however you define the term "militia" (and most jurists and
case law consider it to refer to Article I militias) it is a well
REGULATED militia. - Strange how that principle is so often ignored.

Jim


Well regulated.... Back in the days when the Constitution was written the
militia was well regulated. Nowadays, some people want to over regulate
the militia out of existence (that's their agenda!).

More laws apply to the militia today than did 200 years ago. I'd say it
is definitely "well" regulated and perhaps "over" regulated.

The question remains - regulated by whom?

Anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

"The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of
1787, states:

" A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. "

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National
Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by
William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed. "

Both versions are commonly used in official US Government publications.





Funny that both say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms() shall
not be infringed."

So explain how it pertains only to the militia?



"A well organized Congress, being necessary to the detriment of a free
state, the right of the people to wear clown costumes, shall not be
infringed."

So only Congress can wear clown costumes?

Let's get down to brass tack, shall we?

"to *keep* and bear arms" Now, we all know that to bear arms means to carry
or be equipped with them. But, what does it mean to *keep* arms. It means to
retain them in one's possession. If they are held in an armory at a militia
headquarters they are not, by definition, being kept by the people.

Wilbur Hubbard