"JimC" wrote in message
...

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."

Jim

"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. "



A well educated citizenry, being necessary for the civility of a free state,
the right of the people to gain and use knowledge, shall not be infringed.



Obviously this means that only the citizenry can use knowledge as a
collective and the use of knowledge by the individual is not a right.



Maybe, just maybe, the individual use of knowledge makes for an educated
citzenry, just as individual ownership of firearms makes for a militia. If
not we can then perhaps delegate knowledge and thinking to those selected by
the state, for the state's purpose.

"Robert Musgine" wrote in message
...
"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. "


I don't see what people don't get about this simple statement. Why do they
try to read all sort of crap into it that's not there nor was intended to be
put there.

If it were written in today's English it would be written thusly - "Because
a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A militia, at the time this was written, consisted of individual citizens
bearing arms - their own personal arms. If needed, a call was put out and
indivicual citizens gathered with their arms to fight an enemy. If
individuals weren't intended to have a right to bear their own arms there
would not be a militia. No milita that I've ever heard of at that time had a
bunker full of arms that were passed out to individuals. It didn't work that
way.


A well educated citizenry, being necessary for the civility of a free
state, the right of the people to gain and use knowledge, shall not be
infringed.



Obviously this means that only the citizenry can use knowledge as a
collective and the use of knowledge by the individual is not a right.

Huh? How so? Or are you being sarcastic. It's very apparent that "the
people" refers to individuals - not some group of indeterminate size.

Maybe, just maybe, the individual use of knowledge makes for an educated
citzenry, just as individual ownership of firearms makes for a militia. If
not we can then perhaps delegate knowledge and thinking to those selected
by the state, for the state's purpose.

The founders feared the power of the federal govt. The founders were
concerned about state's rights. Militias are a state voluntary military
consisting of individuals bearing their own arms. It's so clear that you
have to be a fascist liberal to misinterpret it.

Wilbur Hubbard

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.

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*.

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

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:08:31 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

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..

I can see why you consider yourself a sailor. You sure are windy, but a
little confused. Perhaps you will answer me this, if the terms were
defined differently for fascism, a mere 80 years ago, why do you wish to
demand a "strict abiding by the Constitution", a document that is over
200 years old? Were not the terms defined differently then?

If autocratic government is a liberal ideal, why is the greatest threat
to democracy always from the right? The left has a history of
overthrowing kings, and tyrants. The right, a history of overthrowing
democracies. I've looked, but I have only been able to find 3
democracies that were overthrown by leftists, but well over 100 that were
overthrown by the right. Why is that?



Wilbur Hubbard

wrote in message
...

If autocratic government is a liberal ideal, why is the greatest threat
to democracy always from the right? The left has a history of
overthrowing kings, and tyrants. The right, a history of overthrowing
democracies. I've looked, but I have only been able to find 3
democracies that were overthrown by leftists, but well over 100 that were
overthrown by the right. Why is that?


Right and left are subjective to the person deciding the direction.

Hitler and Bush are both considered right wing by you, aren't they?

There is no difference between the right or left. They both want to control
other people's lives where they have no business. One side wants mob rule,
the other rule by dictator.

Whatever happened to people running their own lives?

Democracy is simply mob rule, 51% rule the other 49%. Democracy does not
guarantee freedom nor protect it.

Only Constitutional Republics can do that and only if their constitution
works on the principles that the power is derived from the people and the
constitution is an enumeration of powers delegated to the government by the
people. Powers not delegated are retained by the people. Constitutions are
used to limit governments, expand and protect individual freedoms in a non
contradictory manner.

Anything more is less freedom.

Mitchell Ryan

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:41:33 -0700, Robert Musgine wrote:


Hitler and Bush are both considered right wing by you, aren't they?

Hitler? Yes. Bush? I'm not sure what he is. He sure isn't fiscally
conservative, nor do his actions belie small government, rule of law,
abiding by the Constitution, etc.