Posted on 05/29/2005 11:43:58 PM PDT by John Filson
So do I, Laz, so do I. In this case I think you were way too quick on the draw. My humble opinion ...
Well that's what the Second Amendment is for, now isn't it?
You're not going to find a document that covers all contingencies guy. You can ask if G-d can make a rock so big even He can't move it, but it's not incumbent on me to take the question seriously.
I'm providing a reasonable, logical, rationale to preserve the utility and relevance of the Second Amendment for the individual American in a time when weapons exist that could permit a single individual to accomplish the destruction it used to take an entire army to accomplish. Take it, or leave it. Your choice.
That being said, the Second Amendment is a "spare tire." The Constitution is not intended to keep you going if you wrap your car around a pole.
If the missile owners are as well-behaved as the hundreds of thousands of Americans with a CCW/CHL, the impact would be essentially zero.
Are they covered by the second amendment?
I subscribe to the discriminating weapons doctrine. If you can control them, and if you're good enough to avoid intimidating your community while you practice, then yes, they should be covered.
When it's time to defend America against invading hordes -- or overthrow a usurper of our rights, you'll be grateful that a few of your more patriotic neighbors quietly agreed with me.
No one has a right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of intimidating his community, nor may anyone use arms in an intimidating fashion. Protecting one's community and one's self from tyranny and danger are the only legitimate uses of any weapons system.
Wow! Ain't exactly a shoulder fired piece, is it? Wow!
http://www.thegunzone.com/people/lahti.html
Why does the President ask for the Governors written permission when he requests the State Guard?
I'm not sure, but I do know the question is not relevant. I don't think the President consulted with George Wallace when he nationalized the Guard that Wallace activated to keep black kids out of white schools.
You could be right. I'll accept your feedback gratefully.
So what are you really saying?
A person can use the 2A to defend himself from a despot government, but once he organizes into a private army, he needs to submit to the POTUS or disband
Right or worng we gotta submit to the constitution; "It says what it says." /sarc
GLINOs?
Hardly. You can hang your hat on a distinction without difference if you want, but that doesn't constitute being disingenuous on my part. If you want to argue the platoon that answers to a captain doesn't have to answer to a general: knock yourself out.
I have read numerous times where it was posted in the local newspaper that "The Governor gave written permission for (a specific number) of State Guard members to be transferred to the Presidents command.
So, evidently somebody raised a fuss about it and now he's following the rules with his "written permission".
I guess I like to give 'em enough rope, y'know. I hadn't followed any of the other threads and you may be right.
No .50 caliber rifle was found at Waco according to trial records.
Our militray snipers use a .308 round for long range shots.
From what the Marines I know tell me, it'a about 8" at 2000 yards.
bttt
Have you never heard the quote about the Constitution not being a suicide pact? It says what it says. I can choose to either abide by it or reject it.
I don't know about you, but if my wife were screwing the football team all that "love, honor, and cherish" stuff would go out the window. It's a deal breaker.
Why is it so hard for you to understand the founders gave us a pre-nup for this particular marriage contract: the Second Amendment.
Citation?
Also, I should have put "legally-owned" in there....
Neither of the vehicles in the picture is an M1A1. That's a Bradley with the hatch open. The other one looks like an M113.
Another amusing strawman argument. I merely pointed out that what you stated in Post 126 where you said "No military force is allowed in the United States that is not subject to the President of the United States."is incorrect.
What you label as a "distinction without difference" is in fact a distinction specified by the Constitution itself. Now if you wanted to discuss the fact that our modern day application of this Constitutional provision has strayed from the original intention of the Framers of the Constitution, and that the National Guard of today is not the same thing as the Militia referred to in the Constitution, then we might have something to talk about.
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.