On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:41:30 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

(snip)
It's not my authority, Watcher.

Well, at least you got that part right.

It's well documented in the law.

OK, which law.


On the other hand, if you're going to use historical references to defend
your case of "people's" rights,

No need to use historical references to defend any case. The second
amendment
plainly states it.

No need for historical references?

Yes, when the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states something, there's no need to
interpret it, is there. The only reason someone would have to want to interpret
is would be maybe because they wouldn't want to accept what was plainly stated
there.


Then you're in deep water. If you divorce
the militia history and references from the 2nd, you're left with no
restrictions on the states to outlaw any guns they want, any time they want,
for any reason they want. Without the militia requirements upon the states,
imposed by the Constitution by way of the 2nd, the feds have no authority to
tell the states what to do about private ownership of guns. They'd have a
completely free hand.

Yeah, if they do like you, and ignore the entire second half of the 2nd
Amendment, that part which seems to make you extremely uncomfortable. You should
seek professional help with that mental problem.
Remember, your mental problems are YOURS, not other people's. It's not nice to
go around trying to push them off on other people.