Couple more good quotes, some from the opposition also: Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' -- Mao Tse-tung, 1938, inadvertently endorsing the Second Amendment.
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. -- Hitler, April 11 1942 The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. -- Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5 This is a god one: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi -----Original Message----- From: Timothy Heald Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:59 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban) Yes, it was written over 200 years ago, when militias were for protection, law enforcement and protection from tyranny. However, it doesn't say you had to be in the militia in order to own the weapon, now why wouldn't it say that? Because of the idea of the unorganized militia was that all men (which would of course be updated to all adults both male and female) where automatically members of the militia. This was kind of the reasoning behind the draft, which I still support. All adults should have been members, therefore all adults should be able to own military weapons. Another point. I am in the national guard now. This is supposedly the "organized militia" the constitution speaks of. So should I be able to go buy an M-16 or an AK-47? I could be called to fight both locally and in other nations, and called to do federal service in an active duty unit at any time. So do I meet the requirements of the amendment in your eyes? Tim -----Original Message----- From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:31 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban) This was written over 200 years ago when militias were necessary for domestic protection as the army at that time could not possibly protect the entire US. So, if you were in a militia that was formed for domestic defense then you could own a weapon. As plain as it is written, the NRA still manages to twist the original meaning to satisfy their own agenda. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Timothy Heald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:23 PM Subject: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban) > OK folks. Snap poll: > > "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right >of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - The second amendment to the constitution of the United States > > 1. This proclaims an individual right. > > 2. This proclaims a state right. > > My rant will follow. > > Tim > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
