View Single Post
Old August 21, 2002, 11:37 AM   #16
agricola
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 1, 2002
Location: cymru
Posts: 940
blackhawk,

thats what you consider, but that is not what the consitution or the second amendment says:

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

or from the constitution:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

or all of the judgement in US vs Miller : http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=307&invol=174

The only argument that you could make is that the reliance upon the militia, as opposed to the establishment of a standing army which was considered "tyrannical" and which was specifically targetted against in the Constitution and opposed by Adam Smith.
Your RKBA exists for the defence of the state, not defence from the state.
__________________
pete wylie: " I've never had a fight in me life. But after 40 years of living as a half-decent human being I gained a criminal record for doing my Joe Pesci thing. But it was Joe Pesci played by Michael Crawford."
agricola is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02336 seconds with 8 queries