Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NormsRevenge
That is, the amendment assures only the right of people to arm themselves through state militias like today's National Guard. It was ratified, Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, at a time when many were suspicious of ``a powerful, over-reaching federal government'' and wanted to ensure a defense against it.

How is the National Guard, which answers to the President and which trains with federal weapons, on federal land, paid for by federal money, and which federal charges apply to those who would trespass on the camps, a State militia, capable of protecting individual states from federal tyranny, as intended by the Framers?

20 posted on 12/11/2002 9:40:36 AM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: coloradan
"How is the National Guard, which answers to the President and which trains with federal weapons, on federal land, paid for by federal money, and which federal charges apply to those who would trespass on the camps, a State militia, capable of protecting individual states from federal tyranny, as intended by the Framers?"

Don't even engage the National Guard argument. The national guard did not even exist for more than 100 years after the Bill of Rights was adopted. Furthermore, the National Guard has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It's about the people, not the government. The government has no rights. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


38 posted on 12/11/2002 10:13:18 AM PST by Constitutional Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson