--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ruth, excellent response and post. I disagree only with your 2d > Amend. analysis. Gun ownership by the individual is fundamental to > this country; in the last few years many constitutional experts have > examined the 2d Amend. and construed it to guarantee rights to the > individual, rather than the government militia. In my read that's > exactly what it states. > > "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." > > 'Government' in the Constitution (and particularly in the > Declaration of Independence) is to be feared for its inevitable > inclination to Tyranny, and necessarily then, harnessed and fettered > by the laws of the new republic. It was assumed that eventually any > government will go bad and the ability to resist your own government > (gone bad) by force of arms was understood to be one of the last > resorts to Tyranny.
There's absolutely *ZERO* possibility of any 'militia' being capable of successfully resisting the weaponry and manpower of the US military. > > The fact that it sits uneasily with many modern sensibilities > doesn't mean it doesn't say what it says. Though that's just the > way I see, and there is a lot of disagreement continuing. I think > the Supremes have a 2d Amend. case in this term; I haven't been > following it. > > Marek
