XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.rec.guns, talk.politics.guns   
   From: heekster@iwxt.net   
      
   On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:59:44 -0500, The Lone Weasel   
    wrote:   
      
   >"Scout"  said:   
   >   
   >>   
   >> "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.   
   >   
   >Even the organized militia often ran away when the battle began,   
   >leaving their muskets in the dirt and the regular Army troops to   
   >be overwhelmed and slaughtered by the British army.   
   >   
   See Edward Pakenham, and the Battle of New Orleans, for an example of   
   how militia, wharf rats, pirates, slaves and others that Wheezy runs   
   down, were overwhelmed and slaughtered.   
      
   Wait a minit.   
      
   Pakenham was killed, and his body shipped back to old blighty in a   
   pickle barrel, and he seems to have lost several thousand men.   
      
   How many casualties did Andy Jackson and the militia have?   
      
      
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)