XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns
XPost: talk.politics.guns
From: Nope@noway.net
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> Magus wrote in
> 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.
>
> There have already been a couple of cases on that. The draft is
> constitutional although unpopular.
>
>
Oh, I'm aware of the USSC cases concerning the draft--I believe the
government vastly overstepped its authority and that the USSC wrongly
decided the issue (and went on in later cases to build on bad
precedent), but then I don't have the power to enforce my will on
everyone so my opinion is worth what it'll buy you at wal-mart.
The Constitution says that Congress has the power to raise armies and
navies, it doesn't say how. I see no section in the Constitution giving
congress the power to draft individuals into the army or navy.
To call up the militia is a power of congress, and if you're a member of
the militia then you're screwed--you gotta do the nasty.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
