I didn't really mean YOU, T/L. You've been on an even keel more or less. Of course, you DID say:

"So what, you cut down a sappling. Paraphrashing Bruce Lee, saplings don't shoot back."

And that thing about me not knowing a mag from a clip. But, you know who I meant.

As for defending the 2nd Ammendment like my freedoms depend on it? I will, and I do. I also defend all the OTHER rights in the Bill of Rights. I just happen to believe that Bush is abridging more than ONE of them!

I don't want to take your guns away. I just don't think that you have a need or a right to own UNREGISTERED assault weapons. Mostly, I don't think they should be manufactured or allowed on the market. And like I said, you aren't the "militia" anymore, so even tho YOU don't mention deer hunting, I find it LAME that the NRA uses THAT as an excuse to say that you CAN! (own them.)

 

That is exactly the point. Our forefathers had firearms equal to the standing armies of the time period, just as we should have now.

 

I was not belittling you with comment. I was trying to express, in my own way, that the weapon had a very viable use, which was not to cut down sapplings, but to defend yourself from some one who was shooting at you.

To have a discussion about anything you have to have agreed upon terms. Magazine and clip have two different meanings. Your own research indicated that. If you write a law banning clips, then catch me with a magazine, have I broken the law?

 

And the 2nd Ammendment was for the purpose of establishing and arming a MILITIA. That is now the National Guard units in each state. And they ARE equally armed against the oppressors and enemies. And the government has made SURE that these guard units are made up of volunteers from the people of each state... so that they can conform to the rights of the people as defined in the Constitution and its Ammendments. The Gov't could EASILY station military troops in each state to protect the people, but THAT would violate the Constitution. So... they established the Nat. Guard. That way they are fullfilling their obligation to "The People" without actually allowing EVERY citizen to be armed to the teeth.

I hope you all get to keep your guns. I really don't care about them. But, I'm telling you that neither the LAW nor the Constitution will protect your "right." If the gov't wanted to take them, and you sued them in court, you would LOSE, for the very reasons I have just given. If you then decided to rebel against the gov't, the duly appointed MILITIA in your state WILL enforce the laws against insurection, as THEY were established to do.... equipped and authorized by the 2nd Ammendment.

[assuming, of course, that they could find their way back from their ILLEGAL deployments in Iraq in time to stop you! :lol: ]

 

America is into excesses and collecting. There is NOTHING different between the man who collects weapons as the man who collects exotic cars. BOTH in the hands of the wrong people can be dangerous. The second amendment did not mention what types of arms that were allowed, it did say that their ownership shall not be infringed.

 

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.

Let's test your theory of dependent and independent clauses.

Let's change the above by replacing the comma with a period.

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.

Which sentence stands on its own and which is dependent of the other.

 

dude you are way off !!

 

The National Guard is basically under the contol of the US government. This is not what the forefathers envisioned, what they meant by the word militia was exactly what it was in their time.

 

You need to think why our founding fathers wrote the constitution in the first place . Do think maybe they wanted us the people to have way to stand up to OUR own government ? I think it was one of our founding father who said we need a revolution every 200 years to keep the goverment in check The 2nd admenment was put place for that reason. I think they were aware that the government could get out of control.

 

Sorry, you are mistaken. The GOVERNOR of each state controls the Nat. Guard units in his state. There are certain provisions under which, ONLY in time of war, or national crisis (read insurrection) that the President can USURP this power or control, and gain command of the Guard units. This is what Bush has done during this war. AND, without objection, he has violated the terms of their deployment.