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

To: Blood of Tyrants
"There is no right to have access to the weapons of war in the streets of America."

I f the 2nd isn't a"right to have access to the weapons of war"
then WHAT THE HELL IS IT FOR?, Senator?

Hunting?

Skeet shooting?
7 posted on 03/08/2004 2:05:10 PM PST by RedMonqey (Its is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: RedMonqey
The AWB is directly about the RKBA.

Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but many liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.

However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.

Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.

PostScript: In the vernacular of the founders well-regulated meant well drilled and organized.

8 posted on 03/08/2004 6:41:04 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: RedMonqey
What is the RKBA for? For implementation at the end of Claire Wolfe's "awkward period". That's what causes Kerry, Hilldebeast, Dasch-hole, et al, so many sleepless nights.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

19 posted on 03/09/2004 6:29:33 AM PST by wku man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | 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