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:1190611584.762285.81730@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Sep 23, 5:35 pm, "RSweeney"  wrote:   
   >> "Leif"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> news:1190001050.609548.54710@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >> > It's true that there was nothing called a "National Guard" at the time   
   >> > the Second Amendment was written.  Neither were there any of the rapid-   
   >> > fire arms that are in use today.  Does that mean that only arms in   
   >> > existence in 1789 should be legal today?   
   >>   
   >> No doubt you would also argue that anything other than a screw press is   
   >> protected. The point about the national guard is relevant since you claim   
   >> the NG was the militia that the constitution was written for.   
   >>   
   >> There were indeed privately owned cannon, including breech loading ones,   
   >> in   
   >> 1789. Can I have one of those instead of my semi-auto rifle?   
   >>   
   >> And by the way, rapid fire multiple shot revolvers date from the 1600's.   
   >   
   > Leif speaking:  No, I have not claimed that the National Guard "was   
   > the militia that the constitution was written for."  I've said that   
   > the U.S. Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit Court have both said that   
   > the National Guard is the modern militia reserved to the states by the   
   > Constitution.   
      
   Too bad you can't defend that view, you can only hide behind it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)