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

To: RKV

you have to look at how the lawyers will twist this.

They will use “enrolled” to show it is a collective right or a duty like jury duty.

This quote is all about how the militia will be organized.

Lawyers twist any ambiguity.


11 posted on 08/09/2007 6:38:21 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: longtermmemmory

Please see my post 12. Not much ambiguity there.


13 posted on 08/09/2007 6:40:12 PM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: longtermmemmory
They will use “enrolled” to show it is a collective right or a duty like jury duty.

Easily rebutted. The Act in question required citizens to so arm themselves BEFORE enrolling. It also punished citizens for not arming themselves to a minimum standard outside active/imminent service; absolutely nothing hinted at punishment for simply being armed, even with high-end military arms.

Modern equivalent of what our Founding Fathers actually enacted would be: every 16-year-old boy would be legally obligated to buy an M16 (plus case of ammo, 10 magazines, MOLLE pack, flak vest, and helmet), _then_ register with Selective Service System ... and, as is now, the chance of being called up for active service rather slim. (Coupled with this: the government would be obligated to provide periodic training for all enrollees in each county.)

31 posted on 08/10/2007 4:42:09 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | 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