Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS][RELIGION] a top 20 story at reddit.com...

["Vern Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On 3/5/06, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, Vern Green wrote:
>
> > And I would argue that the 2nd amendment would not be changed at all.
> >
> > The spirit of the 2nd amendment was to keep our own Government under
> > control. An armed citizenry has the chance to step in and take back the
> > Government if it goes awry. Sure, if you could get enough people willing
> > to take up arms and overthrow Bush, you could do that by nature of the
> > 2nd amendment.
> >
> > It has nothing to do with the power of the weapons, it has nothing to do
> > with concealed carry laws, but it does have to do with waiting periods,
> > weapon bans and other laws that restrict my RIGHT to own a weapon.
> >
> > Should the citizenry be allowed to own heavy weapons like tanks and
> > such, the good of society says "No".
>
> Do you think that the people can fight the government without heavy
> weapons?  That seems unlikely to me.

Well, actually I do believe so. First, the VC stomped the US even
though they were a small, poorly equipped military. The Iraqi
resistance is not holding the US at bay with missiles and tanks
either.

I don't think our military will be very effective if it came to an
armed resistance in the US even though the American military has all
the heavy weapons at their disposal. Armed resistance in the US would
have a very good chance of defeating our military.
>
>
> > The ACLU takes the stance, as I have read in the past, that the 2nd
> > Amendment only applies to the states rights to maintain a militia, e.g.
> > The National Guard". This is why they will not take on any single
> > person's right to own a weapon despite the 2nd amendments statement that
> > "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
>
> I guess you and the ACLU don't agree on how the 2nd Amendment should be
> interpretted.  I don't know who is right.
>
Well, when you read the ruling of US vs Miller in 1939, the ACLU is
misreading that ruling. They take the ruling a lot further than the
ruling actually stated. The Miller ruling had to pertain to a sawed
off shotgun. The court said that while every able bodied man was part
of the militia and they were required to show up for service with a
weapon in kind, the sawed off shotgun did not meet that requirement.

It in no way said that Miller did not have the right to own a weapon,
on the contrary, it could be read that the ruling required every man
to own a weapon, but the ACLU in their selective interpretation of the
Constitution, chose to interpret their own way.

The point I have made on multiple occasions is that if the ACLU read
the 2nd amendment the way they read the first and fifth amendments,
not only would every person be able to own a weapon, they would be
required to own a weapon. Since the ACLU is mainly a group of liberal
fanatics (my opinion, shared by a great many others) supporting the
2nd amendment is counter to the individuals belief in removing the
weapons from the hands of Americans.
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>


--
Thanks
F Vernon Green

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion