XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns
XPost: talk.politics.guns
From: Nope@noway.net
Scout wrote:
> "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.
>
>
OK, I'm agreeing to all that you've said, in regards to any other US
military origination. That's why I stressed the word "militia" and
listed the lawful uses for which the federal government may utilize the
militia.
One of the laws you [and I] have cited many times, USC TITLE 10,
Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 311 Militia: composition and classes,
states that pretty much every US citizen, along with select others, are
already a members of the militia.
Is calling up the militia a "draft"?
Is membership in the unorganized militia voluntary?
Would calling up the unorganized militia "to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" be a "draft"?
Would calling up the unorganized militia "to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" be Constitutional? I
think it is--does that mean that every member is called up? Nope,
everyone isn't drafted either.
Is that a "draft" under the common understanding of the meaning of the
word? Maybe, maybe not--either way, it's probably Constitutional.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
