XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Magus"  wrote in message   
   news:yCgHi.63333$U24.54494@bignews5.bellsouth.net...   
   > Scout wrote:   
   >> "Leif"  wrote in message   
   >> news:1189738780.317181.17430@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...   
   >>> On Sep 13, 11:26 am, Natman  wrote:   
   >>>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:30:48 -0700, Leif    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Sep 13, 10:17 am, Leif  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Sep 13, 4:52 am, "Topp@Work"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> "Spaz"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>>> news:9LCdnZ1NOcJU5HXbnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com...   
   >>>>>>>> "RSweeney"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>>>> news:tq2dnRvRTuoP9nXbnZ2dnUVZ_sqinZ2d@comcast.com...   
   >>>>>>>>> its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be   
   >>>>>>>>> infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it   
   >>>>>>>>> shall   
   >>>>>>>>> not be infringed by Congress.   
   >>>>>>>> That's true.  So there's no reason the local government of San   
   >>>>>>>> Francisco   
   >>>>>>>> can't implement their own gun ban.   
   >>>>>>> Except it violates State law.....   
   >>>>>>> And cities can not violate state law   
   >>>>>> Leif speaking: The SECOND AMENDMENT provides no reason why the local   
   >>>>>> government of San Francisco can't implement their own gun ban.- Hide   
   >>>>>> quoted text -   
   >>>>>> - Show quoted text -   
   >>>>> Leif speaking:  The Bill of Rights was intended to protect the people   
   >>>> >from abuse by the FEDERAL government.  The 4th Amendment protects the   
   >>>>> people as individuals, the 2nd Amendment protects the people as a   
   >>>>> community.   
   >>>> Well at least you admit your inconsistency. Sorry but you don't get to   
   >>>> pick and choose which amendments you want to follow. It's a package   
   >>>> deal.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> If the Framers had thought it necessary to protect the personal arms   
   >>>>> rights of individuals, it would simply have added the word "arms" to   
   >>>>> the 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their   
   >>>>> persons, houses, ARMS, papers, and effects..."   
   >>>> They probably thought it wasn't necessary since they had already   
   >>>> protected the people's right to keep and bear arms in the Second.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The contortions you people will go through to justify your positions   
   >>>> are simply amazing.- Hide quoted text -   
   >>>>   
   >>>> - Show quoted text -   
   >>> Leif speaking:  I'm very appreciative of the Second Amendment.  It,   
   >>> along with Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution have given us   
   >>> the modern militia, the National Guard.   
   >>   
   >> A select militia, which now acts a part of the standing army. Two   
   >> principles that were utterly rejected by the Founding Fathers.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> Without it, a military draft   
   >>> would no doubt now be in effect.   
   >>   
   >> 13th Amendment.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Hmmm... even then, a draft into the *Militia* only for the express   
   > purposes of "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and   
   > repel Invasions" is probably Constitutional.   
      
   Is it involuntary? I think it is.   
   Is it servitude? I think it is.   
      
   Even the Founding Fathers opposed a draft. It was after all, it was one of   
   the grievances against the Crown.   
      
   However, until the 13th it could be argued that the federal government did   
   have the power to raise armies even through involuntary servitude. With the   
   ratification of the 13th it would seem that their authority on how they may   
   raise an army has been limited to only those forms which are voluntary, or   
   perhaps as punishment for a crime.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)