Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Vern Green wrote:
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.
I suppose you're right.
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.
That sounds like it applies to a lot more than sawed off shotguns. Here
is the ACLU position:
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
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.
If it meant that every man has the right to own a weapon, it did not
clarify what weapon he has a right to own except by showing one example of
a weapon that he did not have a right to own.
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.
Please respond to their words and see if you can show what is wrong with
their ideas. So far you haven't convinced me much, but I do agree with
one of your arguments (which contradicts theirs), specifically, that the
US military would have a very hard time taking over a state or city if all
the men there had good guns and ammo and the military was not willing to
just blow them all to smithereens. (We aren't defeating the insurgents in
Iraq because we aren't willing to kill as many women and children and
innocent men as would be necessary to win quickly.)
Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact