Re: Gun-Grabbers at the Chicago Tribune

"T Block" <tblock@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:9l6ek.65$jT6.61@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> It really bugs the gun-grabbers that the Supremes did not completely
> scratch out the Second Amendment last week, although they made a small
> first step in that direction. For instance, so steamed are they over
> at the Chicago Tribune they are calling for the Second Amendment to be
> repealed. As usual, they predicate their argument on three words -
> "well regulated Militia" - and claim beyond this you and I have no
> right to own firearms. "The amendment was intended to protect the
> authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has
> left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years," the
> Tribune claims.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Tough Block reply:
>
> The Constitution associates "army" with the Commander-in-Chief and 
> associates "militia" with the People.
>
> And it is a well known characteristic of militias that they are not 
> allowed to have artillery. In other words the People do not have the
right 
> to keep and bear artillery but only the right to keep and bear arms.
>
> And the national guards are recognizable as "army". They have artillery,

> they leave their weapons on base, they have salary and uniform, and they

> can be called by the Commander-in-Chief even though they are
state-based.
>
> So the "militia" is society-as-the-militia. That can simply mean that a 
> citizen has the same right to defend the country as a soldier does
without 
> the citizen being a murderer. And it also means that small groups of 
> people forming militias are not the "militia". The "militia" must be
broad 
> society...or regional community.
>
> The current "militia" is simply that gun owners have range cards and 
> participate in a community of gun owners. (And actually there is a large

> trend of obtaining concealed-carry-permits.)
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Tough Block reply:
>
> Now there's another argument that the People must be allowed to have
guns 
> so that they can be formed into militias.
>
> That's very good but some judges have said that the national guards are 
> the militia and that the national guards supplant the People holding
guns.
>
> If my argument that the national guards are army and not militia is 
> beat...then all that can be said is that there might be a need for 
> additional militias and thus the People must have guns so that they can
be 
> formed into militias.
>
> And we all know from movies that the Old Wild West had marshals and 
> sheriffs who formed posses and deputized them. So the legal system did
not 
> need the Second Admendment.

EXCEPT the men they deputized had GUNS on them, eh?