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:0FiHi.95423$jH3.27637@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Scout wrote:
>> "Magus" wrote in message
>> news:yCgHi.63333$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.
Agreed, but they still can not force your participation. We could, however,
adopt the Founding Fathers ideas where those who supported the action were
those who volunteered to engage in it. Worked to control whether the
government could engage in military adventurism.
>
> 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.
Yep, but I can't be forced to serve, and would refuse being forced to serve
even if I would serve otherwise. A matter of principles.
> Is calling up the militia a "draft"?
Nope, as long as they have the option not to come.
> Is membership in the unorganized militia voluntary?
Nope, but that doesn't mean they have to do anything either.
> Would calling up the unorganized militia "to execute the Laws of the
> Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" be a "draft"?
Not as long as those who responsed did so voluntarily.
> Would calling up the unorganized militia "to execute the Laws of the
> Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" be Constitutional?
As long as those who responded did so voluntarily.
I think we're starting to see a pattern here. What about you?
> I think it is--does that mean that every member is called up?
Agreed, only those that chose to respond will be called up.
>Nope, everyone isn't drafted either.
Which simply ignores the Constitutional violations for those who are.
So tell me, if I only prohibit Catholics from going to church would that be
ok because I haven't violated the rights of everyone to engage in freedom of
religion? Somehow I think you would find that objectionable, not because I
didn't violate the rights of everyone, but because I did violate the rights
of some.
Get the point?
> Is that a "draft" under the common understanding of the meaning of the
> word?
Not as long as the call goes out for volunteers, and participation isn't
mandated.
> Maybe, maybe not--either way, it's probably Constitutional.
Only as long as the response is voluntary. Otherwise it's involuntary
servitude and prohibited by the 13th.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
