home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   alt.conspiracy.america-at-war      Debating how war is good for business      4,706 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 3,848 of 4,706   
   oldpink to Leif   
   Re: Handgun ban in U.S. capital could re   
   16 Sep 07 02:10:09   
   
   XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: oldpink@nltc.net   
      
   Leif wrote:   
   [...]   
   >>However, failing to do so doesn't prove your point since guns are still   
   >>effects and thus protected.- Hide quoted text -   
   >>   
   >>- Show quoted text -   
   >   
   >   
   > Leif speaking:  If personal guns are protected as "effects" under the   
   > 4th Amendment, then there is really no need to give them protection   
   > again under the 2nd Amendment  -- and of course the the Framers   
   > didn't.  The 2nd Amendment protects the people as a well regulated   
   > militia.   
      
   Bzzt!   
   The Founders explicitly mentioned arms in the SA because of their   
   previous bad experience with the British attempting to disarm them.   
   Since there were so many colonists in the New World who were so   
   proficient with small arms, they were able to defeat the largest and   
   most powerful standing army in the world at that time.   
   Recognizing that the ability to defend oneself against tyrannical   
   invaders, common felons, and other hostiles is part and parcel of true   
   freedom, they made the right to keep and bear arms explicit in the SA.   
   Further, to claim that the milita is the National Guard, and that ONLY   
   Guardsmen while on duty can carry arms is pure obfuscation.   
   There WAS no NG at that point in time.   
   The militia at that time was drawn from all able bodied men, using their   
   own weapons when mustered to do battle against the British regulars.   
   The militiamen were not a part of a formal army at all.   
   They came completely voluntarily, under no obligation save their own   
   promises, and they used their OWN arms, stored in their OWN homes, period.   
   Yes, the Founders at that point in time were primarily concerned with   
   being able to repel a foreign invader, but they also well knew the more   
   common everyday threats faced by colonists, particularly those in   
   isolated locations, with no assistance from either neighbors or a police   
   force.   
   To claim otherwise is either naivete or outright dishonesty.   
   --   
   And what exactly is a joke?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca