Okay, my Amerind name is "she-who-runs-with-beer" for today.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:50 PM, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Homeland security devolution? > > http://www.flyingsnail.com/images/homeland.jpg > > > On Oct 27, 10:42 am, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh, but the states did kick up a fuss and raise a citizen militia that > > separated families from 1861-1865... a bloody altercation called the > > Civil War. Post Constitution by 74 years. Stick that in the > > equation. > > > > Homeland security evolution will raise even more questions. The right > > to bear firearms can be inspected from that direction and the civil > > questions become alien defense (pardon the clumsiness of all syntax). > > > > I also agree with Liz if anyone endangers me and mine I will hurt you > > anyway humanly possible nasty way. Guns help me with the distance > > problem and lack of body strength. > > > > <<The States were not interested in supporting civilian > > insurgency>>> > > > > On Oct 25, 10:21 am, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > That's an interesting argument, but I don't think it quite holds up to > > > scrutiny. On a practical level, the modern military has little, if > > > anything, to fear from random citizens with handguns. On a legal or > > > historical level, I don't think that's what the Second Amendment was > > > about anyway. The States were not interested in supporting civilian > > > insurgency. In fact if I remember correctly, (I'm reaching way back > > > to High School here) it was an armed uprising in New England that > > > scared the bejesus out of the founding generation and motivated them > > > to abandoned the Articles of Confederation for the much stronger > > > Constitution. > > > > > The debate over how best to defend the new nation was contentious, but > > > I don't think militias were ever seriously contemplated as fighting > > > off a national army. Rather, it was thought that the nation would be > > > best served by a well-regulated militia under some federal control, > > > but maintained by the States. In other words, if the militias > > > performed well, there would be no need of a large standing army. > > > > > From the every beginning, the Constitution has given the President and > > > Congress the right to call up the State militias. The Constitution > > > even says (I think) that if the national army is unable to enforce > > > federal law, the State militias are responsible for doing it! So, the > > > issue was how best to defend the nation and its laws. > > > > > So, I don't think the Second Amendment can correctly be interpreted as > > > giving individual citizens the right to engage in insurgency against > > > the government. Rather, the Second Amendment is the result of a > > > debate about how best to protect the nation *against* such threats. > > > > > Aaron > > > > > On Oct 24, 11:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > The National Guard is national. Isn't it pretty much controlled by > > > > the national government even are used to fight foreign wars. I think > > > > the argument for protection from a dictatorship of a national > > > > government still applies.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
