XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Leif"  wrote in message   
   news:1190001050.609548.54710@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Sep 15, 10:10 pm, oldpink  wrote:   
   >> 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?   
   >   
   > Leif speaking:  The American forces that took on the British were made   
   > up of organized militia units and units of regular forces.  The war   
   > was not won by  freelance gunners each going out individually against   
   > the enemy.   
      
   That is a fantasy that only gun prohibitors like you indulge in.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)