--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <reavismarek@>
> 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 military is sworn to uphold the constitution and, obviously,
the government hasn't been.
Also, think Blackhawk down or Afgans knocking off choppers with
small arms.
In the forties, Japan observed that it would a disaster to attack
the US mainland where most of the citizens were armed- that being one
of the reasons for being armed in the first place.
>
>
> >
> > 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
>++ the DC gun ban was struck down by a local court and is now on
appeal however, seeing the serious implications of a ruling either
way, they might just make a ruling only to apply in DC.
