(Liz) it would appear to mean that each state maintains the right to keep an
organized militia to prevent the federal government from getting too
powerful and overthrowing the state as a governmental entity. And within
each state, each state can decide what its gun control laws will and will not be as to individuals.

 

*****************
(rock) Again, you must read this Bill Of Rights you are referring to again, for it cannot be the same one that resides in our Nations Capitol.....

Yes, it means an Organized Militia, and knowing the Governments of the world in the 17th century, Government would be PLURAL! It is a fact that the Government, as explained in Websters Dictionary clearly outlines ALL FORMS of Government. AND, it is not Over-Powerful, for several direct interpretations by said founding fathers of this very Right have concluded that the Founding Fathers were implicit in their meaning.

And, it was not Too Powerful, but a dictatorship, monarchy or REPRESSIVE government whom would remove the very RIGHTS this wonderful document enables EACH and EVERY citizen. To further my argument, the fact of MAINTAINING a "well regulated militia" is separate from the right to bear and own arms!! Why not say: "And Those In The Militia"??

The fact is, the militia in the time this Document was originally written demanded each and EVERY citizen be afforded the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms. When a particular Town, City et al. threatened, a call to arms was raised and the entire militia was dependent on these very citizens having THEIR OWN ARMS. Further, they were never required to LICENSE them nor to DEMONSTRATE how many or how advanced their arms were!

During the war of independence, and again during the war of 1812, and all through the history of conflicts with the Indian wars, the Militia would be called out and most of those whom were a part of the active militia had no training what so ever,,,,,, And Citizens, whom were NOT a part of the ACTIVE Militia, were also in possession of Firearms and were able to join said militias...

In fact, it WAS NOT a determination of STATE government which enabled these Militia to activate, rather the THREAT of a loss of Property, Freedom or the fact of an ENEMY approaching an individual town, village, city et al.

And, IT WAS the individual community and citizen whom raised the alarm which brought forth an abundance of men whom laid their lives down in defense of their Wives and Children.

What you and others are proposing lacks luster. It smacks of leaving a Free Peoples without the means of Reprisal or Defense. Rather, giving control of our very futures to a historically abusive and determined Government whom have assassinated their own leaders, hung "niggers" (please excuse this term, yet the impact would not be as it is without it!) on trees while singing amazing grace at the alter, and now allows our citizens around the globe to be taken hostage, raped, maimed, tortured and even murdered in cold blood to defend their Trade Treaties (see dateline et al.) with third world nations whom spit on our flag and flood our streets with narcotics while extending bloody hands to snatch up the tax dollars we give them!

I believe in the right of the CITIZEN to own, posses and bear ANY arms. As far as training goes, the facts do not bear out the idea that training would help nor harm existing ownership. Rather, those whom utilize guns in crime is another story. But the remedy you and yours propose will not bring this desire to fruition, rather it is directed towards the absolute removal of arms.

Again, the fact remains, the right to own and BEAR arms had zip to do with hunting or pleasure. The fact that we often hear that "This so and so gun is too powerful for hunting" is a farce and a demonstration just how the anti-gun lobby, backed by the moneyed and influential New World Order (not some far right nor crazed end timer statement, but a well documented fact), has used this falsehood to even convince and persuade those gun owners whom are in the know to make similar statements.

Well, I do pray all will be Blessed for you and by your works. I also pray that you are not to see the end result of the call for the removal of arms from the people. It will not be long after that this nation will discover itself in Turmoil the likes you can never comprehend. even with all the education you possess or the history you may be are lacking...

THE BILL OF RIGHTS
>
>
>Amendment I
>
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
>or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
>petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

notice people are citizens as individual.......

>Amendment II
>
>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.

 

Here you state that the word PEOPLE remains ambiguous?

>Amendment III
>
>No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
>consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
>by law.

 

No people here....

>Amendment IV
>
>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
>effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
>and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
>affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
>persons or things to be seized.

Here it is explicit as people as individuals....

>Amendment V
>
>No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
>crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
>cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
>actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
>subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
>nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
>himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
>of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
>compensation.

Here there is no PEOPLE. Yet the fact is this Amendment addresses an entirely unique situation. It refers to people as individuals because the rights afforded each citizen are complex and individual.

>Amendment VI
>
>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
>and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein
>the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
>previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause
>of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
>compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
>Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Here again, the rights afforded are unmistakably addressed as The ACCUSED. People would not be technically correct to address this particular issue...

>Amendment VII [1791]
>
>In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
>dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried
>to jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States,
>than according to the rules of the common law.

Again, an amendment addressing a particular issue where PEOPLE is not a requisite to understanding the principle of the issue...

>Amendment VIII
>
>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines posed, nor cruel
>and unusual punishments inflicted.

Again, ditto....

>Amendment IX
>
>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be
>construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now here is my greatest argument... RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE ?? this is CLEARLY not the State... And, in fact, when a state prosecutes an individual citizen, the complaint clearly states The People Verses XYZ . And, the people are the combination of the whole, as in CITIZENS. but, it is not simply the Federal Government which is considered Government, it is the STATE also! And, when the Federal Government relinquishes some controls to the sate, it is the same politicians whom run the state! Quid Pro...

>Amendment X
>
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor
>prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
>to the people.

Now, the ultimate PROOF of the TRUTH of the Founding Fathers can be found in this most Gracious Amendment.

 

The fact is that "are reserved to the States respectively," is the ACTUAL verbiage!! "or to the people," is THE ACTUAL verbiage... CLEARLY, the entire Bill Of Rights is outlined above. AND PEOPLE are clearly SEPARATE from STATE?? NO?? I cannot seem to discover this State Verses PEOPLE confusion you speak of??

************************************************ Sent: Thursday, December 10, 1998 1:07 AM


huh? why send me again?

Please stop and do serious business here PLEASE?!

Thank you!
From ElizaWeb@aol.com  Thu
**********************************************

I guess that Liz feels this issue is not serious enough?? Yet, why does she devote several high profile pages to this very subject????

rock...