"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
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.

The laws creating the National Guard and the standing army. The last time an
armed unit was called up from the "unorganized militia," if I recall
correctly, was in 1865.

The "unorganized militia" is now a legal subterfuge to finesse the Selective
Service. They aren't expected to bring their own guns anymore. g



On the other hand, if you're going to use historical references to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No need to use historical references to defend any case.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No need for historical references?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.

Or they may know something that you haven't considered. For example, the
federal government had no authority under the 2nd (and they still don't,
until and unless the 2nd is incorporated under the 14th Amendment) to tell
the states how to handle the issue of gun control.

If you don't know that, you're living a fantasy. It wasn't until the
Reconstruction Amendments were enacted, after the Civil War, that the feds
presumed to go over the heads of the states on most issues involved in the
Bill of Rights. And they still haven't done so regarding the 2nd.

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.

It doesn't make me the least bit uncomfortable. I've spend over 30 years
studying the Constitution and Constitutional law, after having a pretty fair
academic background in it in college. None of it makes me uncomfortable. I
find it very interesting.

You should
seek professional help with that mental problem.

Thank you, Dr. Freud. And you ought to go back to school and find out what
the hell you're talking about. You apparently missed a lot of it the first
time around.

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.

So, what's your excuse?

--
Dr. Sigmoid Fleet
Psychoproctologist to the Stars