Posted on 04/24/2007 7:13:04 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
I happen to think Bush’s NWO is pretty damn good. Kill islamo scum in their own countries, change the official federal gov’t position on 2A to proclaiming it an individual right, and scuttling the UN Small arms treaty. that’s the kind of NWO I like.
Dear Ultra Sonic 007.
No I did not read the whole article.
Sorry, please retract my previous post. Foot in mouth disease rears its ugly head again.
Why ya telling me? LOL
VERY nice !!!!
Another school of thought is that it was commonly known and accepted that the people already had the RKBA, but 2A was simply written to guarantee those same people that right also extended to forming militias.
I think it’s YOU that need to go back to DU !!!!!!!
“Liberals” tend to overlook the fact that the 2nd Amendment is included in the Bill of Rights, rather than being one of the powers enumerated by the Constitution for the government. That alone is noteworthy, since it’s generally understood that the BOR was meant as a protection for the people from the government. Protection for individuals specifically, since collectively the people are the government.
Naturally this line of thinking doesn’t mean too much to a leftist, since respect for the individual is at odds with their general philosophy anyway.
I always remember Granny Clampett grabbing her gun and wanting to “call out the state malitia” fondly. She knew what it was all about even if she did have a hair trigger.
Who’s on first?
Those who are members of the militia are currently defined in Title 10, section 311. All men from 17 to 45, and with prior service to age 65, and women who are members of the National Guard.
A better consitutional definition would be in the Militia act of 1792. That is even broader.
But it is important to note that the founding fathers distinguished between the Militia and the People.
Still, I would like it if the definition of Militia was expanded to include, as a minimum, all married women 17 to 65, or mothers of a minor child. If they are not suitable for deployment to further public safety (offensive or defensive operations, or rescue work, they can at least defend themselves and their families so their husbands/sons can be available for deployment.
I thought it was WHAT.
Nice work!!!
Exactly so, well put. I’d seen it put that way before, and loved it, so I’m also grateful I didn’t have to try to paraphrase it from memory.
People need to understand this version of the 2nd Amendment was a rough draft/unratified version. The ratified version has only one comma. If this were understood a lot of confusion would be avoided.
Discussed here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm
Best regards,
Thanks for the ping, Ultra.
We, the militia, stand ready for whatever is to come.
The writer is defending the individual right view of the 2nd Amendment against the “collective right” view that prevails on the Left and among anti-gunners. Evidently he failed to consider the possibilty he might need to defend it against the sub-literate as well.
Please accept my apology for being too quick off the mark as well in replying to you, didn’t read all the way to the end of the thread myself. Did read the article though!
Unfortunately, such logic and historical reference is totally irrelevant to the "Brady Bunch" and their various cohorts.
Regards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.