On Sep 5, 9:35*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 15:43:14 -0600, Steve Ackman



wrote:
In , on Sat, 5 Sep 2009 03:10:39 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

drunken drivel deletia

I'm very glad we have those rights. But where in the Declaration of
Independence does it say we have a right to shoot our politicians? My copy
doesn't say anything like that. What my copy says, to boil it down, is that
the King has "waged war on the people of the American Colonies, and
therefore he and his government can go **** up a rope. Get lost."

Jefferson was far more eloquent but a bit wordy. d8-)

*In the literal sense you're right. *Jefferson never
says anything about "shooting politicians." *He says,
"as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War,"

Of course...yall need to read both the Federalist Papers..and the
Anti-federalist Papers, where those responsible for the Constitution had
the time and space to put down the reasons for why they wrote what they
wrote..and what the Constitution is intended to mean, protect and so
forth.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm

Yall can comment on them after you have read them.

Gunner

Federalist paper #46 by James Madison includes the following, which
thoroughly supports my explanation to Richard the seemingly uneducated
Libertarian of the roots of the second amendment. The "well regulated
militia" spoken of in the amendment was never intended to be a federal
body. Rather, it was meant to be run by the individual states, to
protect them against a domineering federal government. This was
"thrown in" to the bill of rights to appease the states that were
afraid of falling in to an abusive situation, not dissimilar to the
one they were trying to get out of with England.

Again, I learned about this in eighth grade. It's not exactly breaking
news, but you guys act like it never existed.

-- begin quote--
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State
governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government
may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of
ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been
employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to
disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States
should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted
succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should,
throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed
plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the
governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently
behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials,
until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear
to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy,
or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the
sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the
supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully
equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be
entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not
be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people
on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number
to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be
carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the
whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to
bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an
army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would
be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with
arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves,
fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by
governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be
doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered
by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted
with the last successful resistance of this country against the
British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over
the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate
governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the
militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the
enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple
government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military
establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as
far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to
trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid
alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the
people to possess the additional advantages of local governments
chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct
the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by
these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it
may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every
tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions
which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of
America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the
rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased
subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands
of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the
supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of
making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long
train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
--end quote--