On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:58:12 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:21:20 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:23:51 -0500, "benick"
wrote:

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
Has anyone changed their minds on the gun control issue? I have not,
I'm still a supporter of the constitution and second amendment.



Better yet does anyone know WHY we have the 2nd amm. ?? (hint... it isn't
hunting or self defense against intruders though those are side benefits)

Well, it is for self defense against anyone who would do you harm,
including the government.

I don't disagree with your statement since I think in practice that's
what the founders would have expected the most likely scenario to be.
However, there is nothing in the second amendment that limits it to
defensive use of arms against the gvt.

Good grief. There is nothing in the second amendment that limits the
use of guns AT ALL. The reason given for the second was the defense
of self. including from and out of control government.

Up until the civil war it was
generally held that states had a right to secede from the Union. When
the South did, the North took up arms against the south to force them
back into the union. Seems kind of ironic inasmuch as the South was
doing the same thing the US did in regard to England.

There was one big difference.

wrote in :

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:58:12 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:21:20 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:23:51 -0500, "benick"
wrote:

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
m...
Has anyone changed their minds on the gun control issue? I have
not, I'm still a supporter of the constitution and second
amendment.



Better yet does anyone know WHY we have the 2nd amm. ?? (hint... it
isn't hunting or self defense against intruders though those are
side benefits)

Well, it is for self defense against anyone who would do you harm,
including the government.

I don't disagree with your statement since I think in practice that's
what the founders would have expected the most likely scenario to be.
However, there is nothing in the second amendment that limits it to
defensive use of arms against the gvt.

Good grief. There is nothing in the second amendment that limits the
use of guns AT ALL. The reason given for the second was the defense
of self. including from and out of control government.

Up until the civil war it was
generally held that states had a right to secede from the Union. When
the South did, the North took up arms against the south to force them
back into the union. Seems kind of ironic inasmuch as the South was
doing the same thing the US did in regard to England.

There was one big difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
????

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 08 Jan 2013 21:43:48 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in :

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:58:12 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:21:20 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:23:51 -0500, "benick"
wrote:

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
om...
Has anyone changed their minds on the gun control issue? I have
not, I'm still a supporter of the constitution and second
amendment.



Better yet does anyone know WHY we have the 2nd amm. ?? (hint... it
isn't hunting or self defense against intruders though those are
side benefits)

Well, it is for self defense against anyone who would do you harm,
including the government.

I don't disagree with your statement since I think in practice that's
what the founders would have expected the most likely scenario to be.
However, there is nothing in the second amendment that limits it to
defensive use of arms against the gvt.

Good grief. There is nothing in the second amendment that limits the
use of guns AT ALL. The reason given for the second was the defense
of self. including from and out of control government.

Up until the civil war it was
generally held that states had a right to secede from the Union. When
the South did, the North took up arms against the south to force them
back into the union. Seems kind of ironic inasmuch as the South was
doing the same thing the US did in regard to England.

There was one big difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
????

....and that has relevance exactly how??

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:38:28 -0500, wrote:

On 08 Jan 2013 21:43:48 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in :

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:58:12 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:21:20 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:23:51 -0500, "benick"
wrote:

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
news:i9j6e819ru4us8seqehbock6ftpc5r1mbn@4ax. com...
Has anyone changed their minds on the gun control issue? I have
not, I'm still a supporter of the constitution and second
amendment.



Better yet does anyone know WHY we have the 2nd amm. ?? (hint... it
isn't hunting or self defense against intruders though those are
side benefits)

Well, it is for self defense against anyone who would do you harm,
including the government.

I don't disagree with your statement since I think in practice that's
what the founders would have expected the most likely scenario to be.
However, there is nothing in the second amendment that limits it to
defensive use of arms against the gvt.

Good grief. There is nothing in the second amendment that limits the
use of guns AT ALL. The reason given for the second was the defense
of self. including from and out of control government.

Up until the civil war it was
generally held that states had a right to secede from the Union. When
the South did, the North took up arms against the south to force them
back into the union. Seems kind of ironic inasmuch as the South was
doing the same thing the US did in regard to England.

There was one big difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
????

...and that has relevance exactly how??

....seditious aliens...

--
scooting right along

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:41:13 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:38:28 -0500, wrote:

On 08 Jan 2013 21:43:48 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in :

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:58:12 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:21:20 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:23:51 -0500, "benick"
wrote:

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
news:i9j6e819ru4us8seqehbock6ftpc5r1mbn@4ax .com...
Has anyone changed their minds on the gun control issue? I have
not, I'm still a supporter of the constitution and second
amendment.



Better yet does anyone know WHY we have the 2nd amm. ?? (hint... it
isn't hunting or self defense against intruders though those are
side benefits)

Well, it is for self defense against anyone who would do you harm,
including the government.

I don't disagree with your statement since I think in practice that's
what the founders would have expected the most likely scenario to be.
However, there is nothing in the second amendment that limits it to
defensive use of arms against the gvt.

Good grief. There is nothing in the second amendment that limits the
use of guns AT ALL. The reason given for the second was the defense
of self. including from and out of control government.

Up until the civil war it was
generally held that states had a right to secede from the Union. When
the South did, the North took up arms against the south to force them
back into the union. Seems kind of ironic inasmuch as the South was
doing the same thing the US did in regard to England.

There was one big difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
????

...and that has relevance exactly how??

...seditious aliens...

You mean like Han?

wrote in :

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:41:13 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:38:28 -0500, wrote:

On 08 Jan 2013 21:43:48 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in
m:

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:58:12 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:21:20 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:23:51 -0500, "benick"
wrote:

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
news:i9j6e819ru4us8seqehbock6ftpc5r1mbn@4a x.com...
Has anyone changed their minds on the gun control issue? I
have not, I'm still a supporter of the constitution and second
amendment.



Better yet does anyone know WHY we have the 2nd amm. ?? (hint...
it isn't hunting or self defense against intruders though those
are side benefits)

Well, it is for self defense against anyone who would do you
harm, including the government.

I don't disagree with your statement since I think in practice
that's what the founders would have expected the most likely
scenario to be. However, there is nothing in the second amendment
that limits it to defensive use of arms against the gvt.

Good grief. There is nothing in the second amendment that limits
the use of guns AT ALL. The reason given for the second was the
defense of self. including from and out of control government.

Up until the civil war it was
generally held that states had a right to secede from the Union.
When the South did, the North took up arms against the south to
force them back into the union. Seems kind of ironic inasmuch as
the South was doing the same thing the US did in regard to
England.

There was one big difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
????

...and that has relevance exactly how??

...seditious aliens...

You mean like Han?

Been away from this group for a while. Now I know why.

There are opinions that the Alien_and_Sedition_Acts nullified the
portions of the second amendment that are often interpreted as allowing
armed resistance to the US government.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 13 Jan 2013 14:56:05 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in :

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:41:13 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:38:28 -0500, wrote:

On 08 Jan 2013 21:43:48 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in
om:

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:58:12 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:21:20 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:23:51 -0500, "benick"
wrote:

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
news:i9j6e819ru4us8seqehbock6ftpc5r1mbn@4 ax.com...
Has anyone changed their minds on the gun control issue? I
have not, I'm still a supporter of the constitution and second
amendment.



Better yet does anyone know WHY we have the 2nd amm. ?? (hint...
it isn't hunting or self defense against intruders though those
are side benefits)

Well, it is for self defense against anyone who would do you
harm, including the government.

I don't disagree with your statement since I think in practice
that's what the founders would have expected the most likely
scenario to be. However, there is nothing in the second amendment
that limits it to defensive use of arms against the gvt.

Good grief. There is nothing in the second amendment that limits
the use of guns AT ALL. The reason given for the second was the
defense of self. including from and out of control government.

Up until the civil war it was
generally held that states had a right to secede from the Union.
When the South did, the North took up arms against the south to
force them back into the union. Seems kind of ironic inasmuch as
the South was doing the same thing the US did in regard to
England.

There was one big difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
????

...and that has relevance exactly how??

...seditious aliens...

You mean like Han?

Been away from this group for a while. Now I know why.

You can't take a jabbing? I suppose that's as good of a reason as
any.

There are opinions that the Alien_and_Sedition_Acts nullified the
portions of the second amendment that are often interpreted as allowing
armed resistance to the US government.

That's the amazing thing about opinions...

On 13 Jan 2013 14:56:05 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in :

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:41:13 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:38:28 -0500, wrote:

On 08 Jan 2013 21:43:48 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in
om:

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:58:12 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:21:20 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:23:51 -0500, "benick"
wrote:

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
news:i9j6e819ru4us8seqehbock6ftpc5r1mbn@4 ax.com...
Has anyone changed their minds on the gun control issue? I
have not, I'm still a supporter of the constitution and second
amendment.



Better yet does anyone know WHY we have the 2nd amm. ?? (hint...
it isn't hunting or self defense against intruders though those
are side benefits)

Well, it is for self defense against anyone who would do you
harm, including the government.

I don't disagree with your statement since I think in practice
that's what the founders would have expected the most likely
scenario to be. However, there is nothing in the second amendment
that limits it to defensive use of arms against the gvt.

Good grief. There is nothing in the second amendment that limits
the use of guns AT ALL. The reason given for the second was the
defense of self. including from and out of control government.

Up until the civil war it was
generally held that states had a right to secede from the Union.
When the South did, the North took up arms against the south to
force them back into the union. Seems kind of ironic inasmuch as
the South was doing the same thing the US did in regard to
England.

There was one big difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
????

...and that has relevance exactly how??

...seditious aliens...

You mean like Han?

Been away from this group for a while. Now I know why.

There are opinions that the Alien_and_Sedition_Acts nullified the
portions of the second amendment that are often interpreted as allowing
armed resistance to the US government.

"Acts" cannot nullify the constitution. Only a constitutional
amendment can change/nullify it.

On 13 Jan 2013 14:56:05 GMT, Han wrote:

There are opinions that the Alien_and_Sedition_Acts nullified the
portions of the second amendment that are often interpreted as allowing
armed resistance to the US government.

Who's opinion? Got a link?

--
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
blood of patriots and tyrants. … God forbid we should ever be twenty
years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its
liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their
people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.“ —
Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787

Oren wrote in news:1a76f89r97a2sat3ndtu2i9sjh4qrgtk24@
4ax.com:

On 13 Jan 2013 14:56:05 GMT, Han wrote:

There are opinions that the Alien_and_Sedition_Acts nullified the
portions of the second amendment that are often interpreted as allowing
armed resistance to the US government.

Who's opinion? Got a link?

OK. Got your attention. The second amendment is often explained as a
way in which the "ordinary" citizen can defend himself against an
overzealous government. That facet only is nullified by the alien and
sedition acts, which have stood the test of time simce before 1800. The
test was most severe during the Civil War, which was won by 1 side. I am
not defending either side's stances here, just stating the obvious. In
other words, the FBI, police, national guard can and will be called upon
to put down an insurrection. Whether or not you like the many instances
this has been done, that line of thinking and acting has prevailed.

Just to assuage your fears, I am against overzealous government. Actions
like Waco have no place in our society. Nor does the hounding to suicide
of Aaron Swartz.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:17:15 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:57:59 -0800, Oren wrote:

On 13 Jan 2013 14:56:05 GMT, Han wrote:

There are opinions that the Alien_and_Sedition_Acts nullified the
portions of the second amendment that are often interpreted as allowing
armed resistance to the US government.

Who's opinion? Got a link?

His. He just gave it (as fact).

Some times you get the bumper sticker and some times you get the
essay.

On 13 Jan 2013 22:58:14 GMT, Han wrote:

Oren wrote in news:1a76f89r97a2sat3ndtu2i9sjh4qrgtk24@
4ax.com:

On 13 Jan 2013 14:56:05 GMT, Han wrote:

There are opinions that the Alien_and_Sedition_Acts nullified the
portions of the second amendment that are often interpreted as allowing
armed resistance to the US government.

Who's opinion? Got a link?

OK. Got your attention. The second amendment is often explained as a
way in which the "ordinary" citizen can defend himself against an
overzealous government. That facet only is nullified by the alien and
sedition acts, which have stood the test of time simce before 1800. The
test was most severe during the Civil War, which was won by 1 side. I am
not defending either side's stances here, just stating the obvious. In
other words, the FBI, police, national guard can and will be called upon
to put down an insurrection. Whether or not you like the many instances
this has been done, that line of thinking and acting has prevailed.

Just to assuage your fears, I am against overzealous government. Actions
like Waco have no place in our society. Nor does the hounding to suicide
of Aaron Swartz.

Do you know how many guns citizens v government have?

* Report by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution
(1982)—"In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined
'militia of the United States’ to include almost every free adult male
in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a
[military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and
military equipment. . . . There can be little doubt from this that
when the Congress and the people spoke of the a ‘militia,’ they had
reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of
bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called
the National Guard."

U.S. Senate, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Report of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary
(1982):7.
126 U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).


* "Every citizen . . . [shall] provide himself with a good musket, or
firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints . . . ."

Militia Act of 1792, printed in John F. Callan, The Military Laws of
the United States (Baltimo John Murphy & Co., 1858): 65.

I hope I got those right...

On Jan 13, 5:58*pm, Han wrote:
Oren wrote in news:1a76f89r97a2sat3ndtu2i9sjh4qrgtk24@
4ax.com:

On 13 Jan 2013 14:56:05 GMT, Han wrote:

There are opinions that the Alien_and_Sedition_Acts nullified the
portions of the second amendment that are often interpreted as allowing
armed resistance to the US government.

Who's opinion? *Got a link?

OK. *Got your attention. *The second amendment is often explained as a
way in which the "ordinary" citizen can defend himself against an
overzealous government. *That facet only is nullified by the alien and
sedition acts, which have stood the test of time simce before 1800. *The
test was most severe during the Civil War, which was won by 1 side. *I am
not defending either side's stances here, just stating the obvious. *In
other words, the FBI, police, national guard can and will be called upon
to put down an insurrection. *Whether or not you like the many instances
this has been done, that line of thinking and acting has prevailed.

Just to assuage your fears, I am against overzealous government. *Actions
like Waco have no place in our society. *Nor does the hounding to suicide
of Aaron Swartz.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

The hounding to suicide? Swartz was charged with hacking into
MIT's online, subscription based scientific article system and
downloading 5 mil articles, nearly the entire thing.
He had previous run ins with the govt over similar activities,
so it's not like he wasn't warned.
So, they charge him with criminal offenses and now it's the govt
"hounding" him that caused his suicide? I guess the govt should
just let computer hackers do whatever they please.....

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:50:38 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:17:15 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:57:59 -0800, Oren wrote:

On 13 Jan 2013 14:56:05 GMT, Han wrote:

There are opinions that the Alien_and_Sedition_Acts nullified the
portions of the second amendment that are often interpreted as allowing
armed resistance to the US government.

Who's opinion? Got a link?

His. He just gave it (as fact).

Some times you get the bumper sticker and some times you get the
essay.

Sometimes it's only a box of chocolates.